Kimi's Potty Mouth

[bajo39 0]

Yes it is interesting but remember Newton would probably have been tortured and killed for atheism. Galileo was imprisoned for life, after publicly renouncing(!), a comparatively minor disagreement with the Church about 50 years earlier. That said, he probably did genuinely believe in it. I suspect that was because atheism was a much less attractive view back then: modern science didn't even exist for a start, especially importantly evolution was unknown, and atheism wasn't a practical alternative in any case so few people would think hard about it, and no one would publish their thoughts.

Nowadays the situation is somewhat different. Below's a study published in Nature, a very famous journal, in 1998, which shows that only 40% of american scientists are religious. This is much lower than the general US population. More interestingly when only the members of the National Academy of Sciences, ie the most eminent scientists in the US, are considered, the figure drops to a mere 7%!

Indeed, excellent points Murray.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Brad I was hoping for a joke, the punchline never came, how entirely lame

I was just echoing his statement Cav....sorry for the disappoitment..

anyway, on the some scientist's that's believers, some scientist go out of their way to prove God does'nt exist, and come back believers because of evidence they come across....I've read personal notes on this...

Obviously it comes down one thing, and I'm not judging anybody.......ignorance, or which seed you come from, which is another debate for another day....

sweet sweet

[Schumikonen 2]

Errr. We've been here before, I think, and it caused a very violent argument with, of course, no resolution and no converts. As I said somewhere or other today: whatever floats your boat, everyone has a choice. I'm an atheist, and in this instance I side with Cav. People want to believe? That's fine too. Creationist? Let's just say that I like a good story as much as the next guy.

I would like to hear you two explaining how life came to be in earth.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I would like to hear you two explaining how life came to be in earth.

probably the cell theory.....

EDIT: God has become so real in my life, I can't even imagine life without hope...

[monza gorilla 1]

I think we should let this one be, don't you? Brad will no doubt remember what happened the last time the forum discussed this subject. We are all (I hope) comfortable with our own beliefs. Let's leave it at that.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I think we should let this one be, don't you? Brad will no doubt remember what happened the last time the forum discussed this subject. We are all (I hope) comfortable with our own beliefs. Let's leave it at that.

No really, I promise I won't get offended, please answer Schumikonen question, if you want to....

[monza gorilla 1]

Ha! I see a challenge! Ok, but it'll have to wait until I get home from work

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Ha! I see a challenge! Ok, but it'll have to wait until I get home from work

[bajo39 0]

anyway, on the some scientist's that's believers, some scientist go out of their way to prove God does'nt exist, and come back believers because of evidence they come across....I've read personal notes on this...

Can you share some of those notes with us?

[cavallino 2]

The description 'fantasy' can be used for a great many unprovable notions; some called science and some called religion.

There is a huge difference between unprovable and unsubstantiated. Religion's current stance seems to be that religious explanations should be considered simply because science doens't give an absolute explanation. That is fallacious, to be considered, those explanations have to be examined on the same grounds, and they of course fall apart at the first stage.

It's all about the methodology of defining our universe; labeling and understanding it. To follow either science or religion completely, to the exclusion of the other, will only take you so far and you will be left with questions that remain unanswered except by guesswork.

I'd rather have unanswered questioned than have them answered by someone else's guesswork.

I don't see science and religion as mutually exclusive.

I don't think think they are remotely related.

It's interesting that many of the men we now see as great scientists were in fact quite religious... Here's a quote from Isaac Newton, the greatest IMO:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done

Seems like you're in good company, Mike

There is of course still room for people to resort to explanations they see fit, remember despite Newton's discoveries, the understanding of science at that stage was far behind what we have today - and even today there is ample room for any scientist to believe in religion if they choose to. All individuals have their limitations of course, science as a whole usually moves to overcome those.

I was just echoing his statement Cav....sorry for the disappoitment..

anyway, on the some scientist's that's believers, some scientist go out of their way to prove God does'nt exist, and come back believers because of evidence they come across....I've read personal notes on this...

Frankly, I have seen so much stuff of that nature that people are completely convinced about, and a lot of it directly contradicting others that it will take a lot to convince me.

I would like to hear you two explaining how life came to be in earth.

Ok you guys, choose one, either the origin of the universe or the origin of life and I will try my best - as a Physics student with interest in cosmology I would prefer the former but I will try my best. The challenge is you have to respond with explanations that fit the current observations, you can poke holes all you want, frankly scientists do enough of that themselves, I want credible alternatives if you have any. No statement will be accepted on the sole authority of any single book/ person/prophecy etc. If you are on for the challenge, let me know.

[goferrarigo 0]

Can you share some of those notes with us?

Are people saying that science does not use hope?? That is ridiculous.

When anybody thinks of an idea/dream they hope it can come true(it doesn't matter if u believe in GOD or not if you hope for something you are automatically believeing in him). Like the scientist trying to make the invisable coat, they try things nd hope something comes true and they can create it. Without hope life is uselss and everyone i have met has some form of hope, You allways hope for a better life and better things.

Prepare for the worst, Hope for the best and take what comes.--- forgot who

[dribbler 6]

Frankly, I have seen so much stuff of that nature that people are completely convinced about, and a lot of it directly contradicting others that it will take a lot to convince me.

Sorry, i was having a big fat Sh#te.....what was that?

[cavallino 2]

Oh someone doesn't like me now, join the club

[goferrarigo 0]

Oh someone doesn't like me now, join the club

who are you reffering to?

[bajo39 0]

remember despite Newton's discoveries, the understanding of science at that stage was far behind what we have today - and even today there is ample room for any scientist to believe in religion if they choose to. All individuals have their limitations of course, science as a whole usually moves to overcome those.

[cavallino 2]

Did I confuse you? Sorry, I'll try to put it in simpler terms

I said if you look for faults in individuals, you'll find some in all of them, that doesn't disprove anything. Kipling was a rabid racist, that doesn't mean he wasn't a great writer.

[dribbler 6]

Oh someone doesn't like me now, join the club

Far from it old boy. Was just dribbler's bad attempt at some sarcasm to remind us all where this thread started. With my level of intelligence, it's about the level of my contribution to your philosophical debate.

Yours, attempting to not be self righteous or arrogant......

[bajo39 0]

Did I confuse you? Sorry, I'll try to put it in simpler terms

I said if you look for faults in individuals, you'll find some in all of them, that doesn't disprove anything. Kipling was a rabid racist, that doesn't mean he wasn't a great writer.

[Autumnpuma 0]

There is a huge difference between unprovable and unsubstantiated.

Semantics. The end result of both terms is 'lack of proof'. To call something 'unprovable' is to make a judgement based on opinion, instead of waiting for facts to present themselves. Every possibility starts as an hypothesis. From there we attempt to prove it into a thesis then fact. Elements of religion are in the hypothesis category and are equal to many 'harder' scientific ideas. They are all waiting for proof.

Religion's current stance seems to be that religious explanations should be considered simply because science doens't give an absolute explanation. That is fallacious, to be considered, those explanations have to be examined on the same grounds, and they of course fall apart at the first stage.

Yes, religious ideas, as I've stated above, are currently hypothesis, waiting for proof, so they should be considered on those grounds.

I'd rather have unanswered questioned than have them answered by someone else's guesswork.

Really? Do you study history at all? A goodly part of it is someone else's guesswork. Have you ever been on an archaeological dig? Have you seen the process that happens before information makes it's way into your textbook? It's guesswork.

I don't think think they are remotely related.

Science describes the creation. Religion describes the creator.

Ok you guys, choose one, either the origin of the universe or the origin of life and I will try my best - as a Physics student with interest in cosmology I would prefer the former but I will try my best. The challenge is you have to respond with explanations that fit the current observations, you can poke holes all you want, frankly scientists do enough of that themselves, I want credible alternatives if you have any. No statement will be accepted on the sole authority of any single book/ person/prophecy etc. If you are on for the challenge, let me know.

Hmm...If persons cannot present religious texts to support their beliefs, then you cannot present opinions drawn from observations of 'scientists'. Only present the facts as we can physically measure them and see if the answer presents itself...

[goferrarigo 0]

Science describes the creation. Religion describes the creator.

nice quote

[Max Mosley 2]

Semantics. The end result of both terms is 'lack of proof'. To call something 'unprovable' is to make a judgement based on opinion, instead of waiting for facts to present themselves. Every possibility starts as an hypothesis. From there we attempt to prove it into a thesis then fact. Elements of religion are in the hypothesis category and are equal to many 'harder' scientific ideas. They are all waiting for proof.

But do religions try to prove themselves? In my experience they just keep saying something like "trust in the lord and you'll be saved", by which they mean "if you don't believe then you'll go to hell, and we told you so".

Really? Do you study history at all? A goodly part of it is someone else's guesswork. Have you ever been on an archaeological dig? Have you seen the process that happens before information makes it's way into your textbook? It's guesswork.

Yes, it is educated guesswork. But nevertheless, the final verdict of the experts is the most rational thing to believe on most issues, when one exists. Anyone who does otherwise is being irrational.

Regarding "religious hypotheses", I don't think they really explain anything, and so I wouldn't call them hypotheses in the same way science uses the term. Lets take the ultimate creation of the universe. How does postulating a God help to explain how something came from nothing? I personally am none the wiser thinking along those lines because any answer one gives can be used in a similar way without a God.

[Autumnpuma 0]

But do religions try to prove themselves?

Hmmm.

Yes, it is educated guesswork. But nevertheless, the final verdict of the experts is the most rational thing to believe on most issues, when one exists. Anyone who does otherwise is being irrational.

Of course. I was making a point about Cav not trusting guesswork.

Regarding "religious hypotheses", I don't think they really explain anything, and so I wouldn't call them hypotheses in the same way science uses the term. Lets take the ultimate creation of the universe. How does postulating a God help to explain how something came from nothing? I personally am none the wiser thinking along those lines because any answer one gives can be used in a similar way without a God.

So, when presented with two forms of guesswork, the non-religious one sways you? It's very hard to convince a person that one guess is better than another. There is simply no proof on the matter, one way or the other, only guesswork. Turn the cosmological clock back far enough, with particles getting smaller and smaller, and you are left pondering eternity. When you get there, the concept of 'God' becomes a bit more rational, I think.

Murray, I'm still pondering my question...the above was just answering posts

[Max Mosley 2]

Cheers Mike. My answer to how the universe started, or whether it did, is simply that I don't know. I think thats all one can say.

[bajo39 0]

Cheers Mike. My answer to how the universe started, or whether it did, is simply that I don't know. I think thats all one can say.

I don't think so... Most scientists agree with some form of the Big Bang Theory.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Cheers Mike. My answer to how the universe started, or whether it did, is simply that I don't know. I think thats all one can say.

Indeed, my friend, indeed.

I believe it started a certain way, but I have no proof. I can describe the theory of an expanding universe, but that doesn't explain what happened at that moment before the 'expanding' happened. Describing the process of universal creation does nothing to prove, or disprove, the existence of a 'creator'. I know a person can't prove a negative, but I wonder how a concept of 'god' would come into being without a frame of reference.... Why attribute the lightning one day to a new concept of 'god' when for millions of years the lightning was simply lightning...?