Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 106
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.Page 4 of 25    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)

there are burning questions that science is not capable of dealing with, but beg an answer.


Such as?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 7:47:25 PM
cause of the percieved big bang.

how to raise the dead.

get rid of all old and new deseases.

how to effectivly deal with all of the stupidity in the world.

you could add a few more.

are you telling me, that the answers that science gives you, [by fallible man] are to be trusted 100%?
think you'll ever be let down?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 108
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:29:03 PM

are you telling me, that the answers that science gives you, [by fallible man] are to be trusted 100%?
think you'll ever be let down?


No and yes. But how is that any different than any other aspect of life?

So who should we trust more? preachers? "God?" What has He done for me, lately? Fixed my computer? Found me a better job? Increased food production and beaten disease?
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 109
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:33:28 PM

However, some of the hypotheses come at this problem indirectly, by seeking additional side-effects which CAN be observed. A could cause B. A would also cause C.


Modus ponens.


A would also cause C. We can't observe B, but if we can identify and test C, we can still support the conclusion of "A".


It would not make it true.

Just saying...
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 111
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 9:47:20 PM

hi.. just going back to the poster who said that the prophesy could point to other nations besides the USA... pls go and study the book of daniel.. if you are a history buff or know one pls confirm that daniels four beasts represents each of the past kingdoms in power..


Okay, you lost me at the four breasted part. My eyes lost focus, and I started thinking about what mammal has four breasts. I am sorry, I can't get past it.

And this is proved by the bible?

Yeah...I make about as much sense as you do...
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 112
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 10:04:50 PM
187 - So, basically, you're confirming "it ain't there".

Post hoc fallacy. Confirmation bias. You decided what you WANTED the "prophecy" to mean, and then shoe-horned every vague reference you could to fit your views. Better arguments have been made that these "prophecies" were complete 2000 years ago, and that they were written after the fact. In any case, "prophecies" are written the ways they are for two reasons:
1) the symbols used are familiar to the people of the time of writing
2) they're vague enough one can make them "come true" anyone one wishes, or claim that when it DOESN'T come true...it wasn't the TRUE time and place the prophecy referred to.

How convenient.

In any case, many of the descriptions you apply are pretty...um..."idealized" views of the USA. For the purpose of prophecy, let's just call them fictional.

I'm sure the Yavapai, Gwichin, Cherokee, Maya, K'tun'ax'a, and many others would dispute the empty uninhabited land and the peaceful and benevalent rise of nations.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 113
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 10:11:03 PM
Oh goodness. Ease up mate.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:04:54 PM
Has anyone told Roccocogirl that Catholics aren't really Christians anyway?

Seriously, you should talk to some of the more rabid Protestants and particularly the Evangelicals.

It just amuses me to see her wade in on the side of folks who would, if pressed, confirm that she is destined to burn for all eternity as an apostate Christian.

:)
 Peripheral Visionary
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 115
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 12:06:34 AM
False. It makes no sense to start from today without examining what happened between religion and science, what actually happened, yesterday. Sorry. I totally disagree with your extremely militant point of view. Some scientific things can't be embraced as good lest we lose our humanity. This is no reason to continue to bludgeon a Church who reserves your human heart, as it moves through a society, in its best interests. You can't hate on them for sticking to their opinions--nobody in the Church is actively hating on you
...
One can't loose sight of all that is humane in favor of discovery. The Church is around as a reminder (as imperfect as the people can sometimes be). Sorry if this cramps anyone's style. The past is simply used as an excuse to hold a grudge and harbor resentments--and now as a way to justify reasons to discard care for appropriate conduct within a society--like pirates.


I hate to begin with a sidetrack (of a sidetrack, no less), but I feel this needs commenting on. Science, of course, is ineffective as an arbiter of good and evil. That's not what it's for. Religion, however, doesn't fare much better. Casting the Church, of all organizations in this role is something I just can't take even remotely seriously.

In my home province recently, the Church decided (as it has in other places) that instead of dipping into their own coffers, that a small parish would foot it's own bill for the court settlements paid to sexual abuse victims. Funds raised through bake sales, bingo, and of course the collection plate, raised by little old ladies to fix their church roof, are instead going to pay for the sins of a predator while half a world away the Church collects interest on the loot of centuries past. This same organisation decided to shield and hide child abusers for decades, moving them to remote parishes (like the one in question) where they had opportunity to reoffend, and less chance of getting caught.

The Church, as an organization, has consistently decided to put it's reputation as a source of morality (and the revenue stream that comes from that) ahead of any actual morality. Science figures out how things work, and people need to figure out how to apply that knowledge humanely. Turning that responsibility over to the Church (or indeed, to any church) is no better than turning it over to Exxon, Greenpeace, PETA or the NRA. Organizations with agendas.

In short (heh), the Church being capable of determining what branches of science should be pursued, or how they should be used is, at best, unsupportable.


If you cannot come up with a theory on how these phenomenon came about then you accept their [those phenomenons] existence based on faith.


I'm sorry, this doesn't scan at all. I accept the existence of the universe, because if I stomp my foot, there it is. No faith required there (well, beyond the philosphical, 'Do I really have a foot' kind, and if we're counting that, then this is the most pointless thread ever.).

Next step: If the universe happened, it must have had a cause. Logic, point A to point B. No faith needed yet.

Next: How and Why did the universe happen? Dunno. The only way I need faith here, is if I'm saying I truly believe that the universe happened because of X. Guessing, even the educated kind (which as I understand it is all science is prepared to offer at this point) doesn't require faith, in my opinion.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 116
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 5:20:20 AM
RE Msg: 192 by Peripheral Visionary:
In short (heh), the Church being capable of determining what branches of science should be pursued, or how they should be used is, at best, unsupportable.
I can understand that. After all, there is always possible bias amongst the members of the Church. But who else would we trust? Politicians, who lie to us so often, that people say that you know if they're lying because their lips are moving? Lawyers, about whom people say that, and worse? Businesspeople, who mainly vote only for what will make them money soon, and care nothing about the environment, or horrific side-effects? Do we leave scientists to judge themselves, making them a body with absolute power over science? Isn't it said that absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Clearly, all groups have problems. But there is another way. You and others contribute here on the forums, without needing to be trusted to be the arbiter of these forums. You post your opinions, and thus open us all up to new ideas, thoughts, concepts, and information. You do not tell us what to think. You give us food for thought. The Church could do that as well, and so could politicians, and so could businesspeople, and so could scientists. Each has a unique way of looking on these matters, and each has information that the others don't seem to have. So each can contribute in the same way as you do on the forums, and in that way, each can contribute to the discussion.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 117
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 6:37:00 AM

Okay, you lost me at the four breasted part. My eyes lost focus, and I started thinking about what mammal has four breasts. I am sorry, I can't get past it.

And this is proved by the bible?


Hey, I had a true believer tell me once that a passage in the bible proved unicorns existed. What can you say to that. I just nodded and smiled, so as not to upset the crazy person. It really is all you can do.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 118
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:09:46 AM


So, just because I couldn't observe the initial conditions that led to last August's major thunderstorms in southern Ontario, do I therefore conclude that the thunderstorm did not, in fact, occur? Because that's the logic you seem to be employing.


No and clearly you are not following my logic, that maybe my fault.


Interesting how those who employ faulty logic are inclined to pat those who argue its validity on the head and say "there, there, you're just not getting it's subtle cleverness."

Sorry, but I do get your logic. It's just false. Here's how...


You may not have seen the thunderstorm however, you can see the result, you can by maybe dying vegetation pinpoint the exact moment it struck. You can therefore use science to answer what happened and when.


Yes, and we can see the "effects" and the evolution of the universe since the big bang as I have outlined for the big bang from the CMB on down. That's all. Just evidence for the event and what happened since. But clear evidence for the event itself.


Another way of trying to get your heads around this is to imagine we are little A.I. computer programs, we run around in our little electronic universe.


Uh oh! Are we getting into a discussion about the "Great Programmer in the sky?"


Can you answer how the big bang occurred in the same way? Without using faith.


No and no. Cosmologists only have mathematical constructs for how the big might have occurred and almost as many alternatives as there are cosmologists. Just as the thunderstorm's effects might give me initial conditions such as temperature, humidity, duration, etc., so might the phenomena I previously outlined to you tell me something about what led to the big bang. You'll notice the emphases, however.

It's about what can be observed. No "faith" required. Which is where religion and science diverge.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 119
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:29:43 AM
Andyaa - Just because they cant figure out how the big bang occurred doesn't mean scientists do not know. The big bang occurred by an increasing intensity of pressure.
We can observe the effects of the big bang by watching the galaxies drift further apart from a central location.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 120
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:44:57 AM

The first one I am asking for proof of...the second one is what you keep trying to use as justification.


Interesting. You're correcting me on my english. Okay, but either way, what's really your point since the big bang clearly occurred. We have the evidence. No faith required. Science can theorize about how it occurred but it's, by no means, a foregone conclusion that one mechanism holds causal sway over the other.

Cosmologists don't know of initial conditions for the big bang, and freely acknowledge that so...so what? You're insisting some kind of faith is needed. Faith in what? The big bang occurred? It did. Pre-existing conditions? Unknown.

What I can tell you is that cosmologists are looking to mathematics as a means to model how a universe might have formed. And let's not debate the efficacy of that approach since the likes of Ed Witten and Stephan Hawking are MUCH smarter individually than our combined brain pans.

They are also looking to the data such as the WMAP results to see if there is anything that points to a "signature" of what came before, as well as other interesting possibilities such as possible interfaces between ours and "neighbouring" universe. Again...and I will emphasize...scientists aren't saying these are real phenomenon, just what might be seen.

Scientists aren't a bunch of priests huddled around talking about God in definitive statements but very smart, very dedicated people interested in the reality of our universe. They conduct experiments, develop theoretical models and observe. If you could tell me where "faith" plays a role, then perhaps we might have a discussion.

Instead, you're simply insisting that "faith" IS required by science. And that's a definitive statement. Prove it.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 121
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:51:29 AM

Because to me and by many of your definitions, faith is the belief in something that cannot be observed or tested


You're making the assumption that a) you're right and you're interpreting everyone's thought patterns. It's true, instinctually we are driven to look for cause to an effect. That's why a universe that is an effect without a cause is counter-intuitive. So, why should that be surprising?

What's your alternative?

b) you're also assuming that these pre-existing conditions aren't imprinted on the formation of the universe. Science marches on. Perhaps, one day, physicists will have a means to measure them. Perhaps we might even be able to look outside our own universe into another.

It seems you're saying that, somehow, the progress of science is some kind of quasi religion and it's efforts to find real phenomenon are the equivalent of theologians debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Glad you're not determining research funding.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 122
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:53:57 AM

Just because they cant figure out how the big bang occurred doesn't mean scientists do not know.


Uh...yes it does. (Double negative allowing).


Because to me and by many of your definitions, faith is the belief in something that cannot be observed or tested (the cause now not the effect). Because to me and by many of your definitions, faith is the belief in something that cannot be observed or tested (the cause now not the effect).


I am rootin' for camp Andyaa.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 123
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 8:30:49 AM


Instead, you're simply insisting that "faith" IS required by science. And that's a definitive statement. Prove it.


You have defined faith as a belief in something which has no evidence for and cannot be tested.


Did you duck that challenge or dodge it? I think you ducked it. Anyone thing he dodged, instead?


Here you say you don't know what the initial conditions were. You need these pre-existing conditions to understand why the universe is the way it is. Why the physical laws are the way they are, otherwise you are just taking the laws that you use in every day science on faith, (some may argue now [so what] that that is 'blind faith').


Says who? You? Do I need to know the history and origins of a hammer to know how to use it properly? Are you saying that the laws of physics are somehow "conditional"? Uummmm...if so, then..ooookkkaaayyyy... However, if the questions is whether or not the configuration of natural laws of the universe can point to how it formed...well, maybe. Maybe not. Lots more physics to be done to get to that point. Again, where's the faith required?

You do realize that there are some serious efforts to try to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity since physicists are uncomfortable with a universe operating on two sets of mutually exclusive laws. I would assume that, if they were inclined to take things on faith, then they'd just be happy with the way things are. Not very scientific.



It's true, instinctually we are driven to look for cause to an effect. That's why a universe that is an effect without a cause is counter-intuitive. So, why should that be surprising?


Why should that be suprising...well for one, you have no proof of it.
Assumption, no those are your words...''its about what can be observed"


Did you feel that breeze on your scalp? That was my "point." Which was, quite simply, what is driving science forward in the search for a "cause" of the universe. Something that they don't have to take on "faith."

So, if it can be observed, then I guess that would be "proof," wouldn't it?



It seems you're saying that, somehow, the progress of science is some kind of quasi religion and it's efforts to find real phenomenon are the equivalent of theologians debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


No, I only see you making those claims


No, I only said it 'seems.' And you corrected me on MY English?
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 124
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 8:38:20 AM
Philosophically, faith and science are constructs of the mind, and and both are interpretations of causality.

They both also stem from the same part of the brain.

If you don't believe me look it up.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 125
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:42:38 AM

yes and these nay sayers keep ignoring the basic philosophy 101 I have previously stated in that you need faith to believe anything exists beyond your own thought.

live with it.


Oh, you saucy nihilist, you! Guess I don't have a choice.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 126
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:27:08 AM

For those that insert 'Dunno'/'so what' into the blank...change faith to blind faith.


Or, your other option is to realize that science does not know at present but is actually searching for an answer. Therefore, faith is not a factor.
 x_file_
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 128
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 11:27:35 AM


yes and these nay sayers keep ignoring the basic philosophy 101 I have previously stated in that you need faith to believe anything exists beyond your own thought.


Hu?

Delusional people believe all sorts of things...they obviously don't need faith. People with brain damage believe in things that are just not there.

As a kid I used believe in Santa Claus... which was way before I even knew of the word "faith".

People form beliefs for many different reasons. I knew of person who took so much LSD that he believe he was an orange... not the color... an actual orange.

You don't need faith to believe. Ignorance, delusions, fever, brain damage, brainwashing, LSD, ecstasy, tricks of light, etc... can all make you believe.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 129
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 11:42:40 AM

Ironically, it is more the static…the universe has always been here model, I would have thought the ‘anti’ religious people would have plumped for.


Why? The observations don't support the "steady state" universe. It's "old school."


Seeing at the big bang theory mirrors the creation account in the bible.


Not really. Shepherds and astrologers 3,000 years ago didn't have our technology or understanding of the universe. They were certainly unaware of red shift, Cepheid variables, Type 1A supernovae, CMB, etc. So "in the beginning" from a biblical point of view is different from "the first 100 femtoseconds of the big bang" from a cosmologist's standpoint.


Do you think I should mention to Stargazer about the ekpyrotic universe, or do you think I will be asking for trouble :)
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/


Don't know why. It's one possibility. There are many others. Each with their own consequences, observationally speaking.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 11:54:21 AM
RE Msg: 214 by x_file_"
You don't need faith to believe. Ignorance, delusions, fever, brain damage, brainwashing, LSD, ecstasy, tricks of light, etc... can all make you believe.
All these can help you to believe all sorts of things. But you still need faith in yourself, that you are right.

The example that shows this to be true, is people suffering with high levels of anxiety. They doubt everything they think all the time. They have no faith in themselves, and question themselves so much, that they are so unsure if they ar doing the right thing, that they are unable to act.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 132
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 12:12:45 PM
So you dont see the comparison between in the beginning God created the universe and in the beginning the big bang formed the universe.


No, not really, nor am I likely to no matter how much you might be inclined to insist that the connection is there. One is a matter of religious belief. The other is based on empirical evidence.

Edit: I would also point out that there are those who would argue your use of the phrase "big bang formed the universe" versus "universe formed in a 'big bang'." Others might see it as a distinction without a difference.

If you want my opinion again, the word 'bara' used in the bible doesn't mean created, as I have said in other threads create is an abstract word which the shepherds would not have understood so could not have been used like we use the word create today.


Well, that would certainly be an "opinion."


So yes steady state is dead but it is in direct conflict with the bible, whereas big bang is just reiterating what the bible states.


That would be your interpretation. And you would be wrong.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 135
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 12:57:48 PM
Yep, the universe formed inside an expanding singularity. Still doesn't change the parallels. If you don't want to see the almost exact word for word similarity between them thats fine, sure lots of people will draw their own conclusions.


Actually, Andy, insisting on parallels where none exists really seems like a pointless exercise. I see the parallel you're tryingto make. I just find it flawed.

As I recall the OP, he was trying to say that religion and science are different because religion relies on belief in the absence of evidence. The science of astronomy and cosmology have years of evidence for a singular event from which arose the universe that we observe. Certainly "pre-existing conditions" are an area of ongoing research and theorizing, but no one is making any definitive statements.

Or are you insinuating that scientists are the new "priest class?" Because I thought we already had a clergy. It seems to me, you have a distrust of the science. Why? What is it about science's attempt to understand the origin of the universe that would have you equate it to the creation mythologies of the world's religions?


It was the translation that was more my opinion based on how the word is used else where in ancient hebrew texts but hey ho.


Well, not able to translate ancient hebrew, I can only take your word on how it is to be translated. I would ask, however, is there consensus in how that language was used and what concepts, either concrete or abstract, it conveyed?

Or are we to take your interpretation "on faith?"

[edit]


Our modern languages are the product of a Greco-Roman world where abstract words are prolific. An abstract is a word or thought that cannot be related to one of the five senses; hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste. However, each Hebrew word is related to a concrete idea, a substance of action. A good illustration of the differences is the word anger which, from a modern perspective, is an abstract idea. The Hebrew word for anger is awph but literally means "a flaring of the nostrils" a substance of action. In fact, the word awph is also the same Hebrew word for the nose.

So like I said 'create' didn't exist...it is a modern, miss-translation of the bible.


So noted.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >