Before The Big Bang!

[Darth Flatus]

Earlier i posted a reply to his new prophets thing but then i deleted it because i felt it was too condescending. Anyway why is this turning into a scince vs religion thread, we've had those! This thread is supposed to deal with specifics of the Big bang theory or God's Fart.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Years ago I read about 'imaginary time' in Stephen Hawking's book about the big bang and didn't understand it at all. Can anyone explain it more simply? Or has it been disproved since then?

[julianw]

When new prophets arrive? Are you a Mormon, or something? The last prophet that hasn't been discredited was Mohammed.

 

Acutally, I simply study all religions a little bit, though I am no expert on any of them. I wouldn't call myself religious at all, since I don't follow any of them. But I certainly would not discredit any prophets without extensively studied their teachings myself. Since you think Mohammed hasn't been discredited yet, why can't there be new prophets coming that won't be discredited either? I mean Mohammed did come after Christ and Moses.

 

That is not true. I see you haven't understood what I posted. When a theoretical model that has given birth to laws becomes obsolete, it is simply improved, expanded to incorporate the exceptions which weren't previously covered by it, never outright discarded. In the eventuality of a Theory of Everything (or Unification), Maxwell's equations or Newtonian gravity aren't going to be "scratched".

 

Well. Newton's laws are once regarded as the eventual theory in physics, but when science advanced and new experimental methods become available, quantum mechanics becomes the theory that outdated Newton's laws. F = ma was proved to be only a very good estimation but not fully correct. It doesn't mean we can no longer believe in science. I am simply saying that science updates itself.

 

No. You can't compare religion to physics, because they are a completely different thing. Not only because of the fields they cover, but because their goal. Science doesn't aim to explain "why", but "how". With religion, it's the other way around.

I am simply comparing how we practice religion and science, not the actual practice themselves. They both require openmindedness is all I am saying. Fanatism in any practice is evil. Well, except Kotor of course.

[metadigital]

[1]Acutally, I simply study all religions a little bit, though I am no expert on any of them. I wouldn't call myself religious at all, since I don't follow any of them. But I certainly would not discredit any prophets without extensively studied their teachings myself. Since you think Mohammed hasn't been discredited yet, why can't there be new prophets coming that won't be discredited either? I mean Mohammed did come after Christ and Moses.

 

That is not true. I see you haven't understood what I posted. When a theoretical model that has given birth to laws becomes obsolete, it is simply improved, expanded to incorporate the exceptions which weren't previously covered by it, never outright discarded. In the eventuality of a Theory of Everything (or Unification), Maxwell's equations or Newtonian gravity aren't going to be "scratched".

 

[2]Well. Newton's laws are once regarded as the eventual theory in physics, but when science advanced and new experimental methods become available, quantum mechanics becomes the theory that outdated Newton's laws. It doesn't mean we can no longer believe in science. I am simply saying that science updates itself.

 

No. You can't compare religion to physics, because they are a completely different thing. Not only because of the fields they cover, but because their goal. Science doesn't aim to explain "why", but "how". With religion, it's the other way around.

[3]I am simply comparing how we practice religion and science, not the actual practice themselves. They both require openmindedness is all I am saying. Fanatism in any practice is evil. Well, except Kotor of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. In an effort to prevent this thread from being derailed, I shall keep my opinions about religion to myself, but I certainly treat anybody who says they have a direct line to God with the most skepticism I can: and that is quite considerable ...

 

2. Have you studied physics at all? You are coming across as an Arts bigot; someone who gives credence to the wildest non-scientific comments in a misguided "democratic" effort to give everyone a say. Science is not one person's view on anything, it is the culmination of humankind's combined efforts to observe patterns in the material universe.

 

If you look at the famous Albert Einstein equation

E = mc

[Reveilled]

What?

 

When new prophets arrive? Are you a Mormon, or something? The last prophet that hasn't been discredited was Mohammed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What?

 

Muhammad was the last prophet? Are you a Muslim, or something? The last prophet that hasn't been discredited was Malaclypse the Younger.

 

1. In an effort to prevent this thread from being derailed, I shall keep my opinions about religion to myself, but I certainly treat anybody who says they have a direct line to God with the most skepticism I can: and that is quite considerable ...

 

Consult your pineal gland. You may be surprised at the results.

[metadigital]

I don't want to start a religious flame war, so I will just leave it. (My comment was based on the fact that there is not sufficient evidence to categorically disprove Muhammed, unlike those prophets unfortunate enough to ply their trade more recently.)

 

If your pineal gland tells you you have a direct bat-phone to god, good for you! I have no such direct link to any God-like being, unless such a:

God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

 

Furthermore:

As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

 

(All quotes from Voltaire.)

[Cantousent]

Whether or not God is the prime cause, we still look for answers. Even if you believe in a higher cause, there is very little doubt that science serves a useful purpose in our society. Scientists, believers, disbelievers, and inbetweeners, are noble in their endeavors and we should not be so quick to belittle their efforts just as they should not belittle our conviction.

 

On one hand, the world would be a smaller, darker place without science.

 

On the other hand, faith that cannot withstand intellectual honesty does not deserve to live.

 

That's not so much a comment on the debate. I don't think the debate can be avoided. Rather, it's a nod to you, meta, for fighting the good fight. Not all convictions are driven by religion.

[Darth Flatus]

bloody hell meta i look to you as the bastion of english language and you choose the american spelling for a word used to describe someone who doubts stuff.

 

I liked your arts bigot rant. I am going to nick it. :D

[metadigital]

bloody hell meta i look to you as the bastion of english language and you choose the american spelling for a word used to describe someone who doubts stuff.

 

I liked your arts bigot rant. I am going to nick it. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the compliment.

 

I am not a British-English-Spelling-Nazi, though (although I traditionally prefer it); I am quite comfortable with spellings changing over time (and the US did make a decision to update the English language, it's not an issue of negligence, incompetence or slovenliness). I am a punctuation-nazi, though, so if ever I make a mistake with that, feel free to let me know. :ph34r: "

[julianw]

2. Have you studied physics at all? You are coming across as an Arts bigot; someone who gives credence to the wildest non-scientific comments in a misguided "democratic" effort to give everyone a say. Science is not one person's view on anything, it is the culmination of humankind's combined efforts to observe patterns in the material universe.

 

Actually, I am an electrical engineering major. Apparently not a bright one though.

 

3. It makes me cry and scream with rage to hear people say that science is "just another theory". It is the culmination of the cumulative nous of most of the smartest beings to ever communicate with others, based on their objective observations, peer reviewed and checked and rechecked and available for everyone else to recheck at any time.

 

Science is not another theory. If my words upetted you in any way, I apologize. I said it is a practice. I just don't think it explains everything such as life's purpose, etc.. So I try different means to find the answer.

 

  I certainly treat anybody who says they have a direct line to God with the most skepticism I can: and that is quite considerable ...

 

I doubt my skepticism for those people are any less than yours. That's why I try to study them in the first place. Their claims are so significant that I must find out whether they are lying or not. It is because that I am a man of science, I feel that it is my responsibility to distinguish truth from fallacies in any claims.

 

Anyway, just want to thank everyone's inputs. It helps a lot to learn others' perspectives on the issue.

[Cantousent]

I'm quite glad that you aren't a spelling nazi of any type. I would be forced to ridicule you were that the case.

[abkhome]

i'm just a nazi

[metadigital]

I'm quite glad that you aren't a spelling nazi of any type.  I would be forced to ridicule you were that the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moreover, I actually have fads for my spelling; right now I am favouring the "z" speliings because I prefer their etymological roots ("s" is French derivative).

 

Also, I empathise with the poor "z", it is so infrequently used. I want to give it a boost.

[SteveThaiBinh]

 

But...but...the 'z' is...the American spelling!

 

You'll be writing 'color' and 'sidewalk' next.

[Cantousent]

bwahahaha, who cares about the Big Bang? We Americans will soon own the English language!

 

Actually, some Americans use English spellings as a sort of affectation. I'm an Anglo-phile as much as anyone else, but I'm perfectly happy using American spellings. Some English idioms are quite funny, though. I especially like "Knocked up." comedy.

[julianw]

Though English is not my native language, I always thought Oxford has the final say on the English languague.

 

[EDIT] Metadigital - If my ignorance of the nature of science has angered you, I sincerely apologize. It is not my intention at all.

[Darth Flatus]

Written english in England is slightly different to written english in the US. Thats perfectly understandable given the circumstances. I perosnally have no problem with it - i just like to make jokes.

 

In england the oxford english dictionary is considered the standard ttome for consultation. In the US i think its merriam-webster

[metadigital]

   

 

But...but...the 'z' is...the American  spelling!

 

You'll be writing 'color' and 'sidewalk' next.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but the "s" spelling is Norman.

 

Anyway, I have to write "color" when programming, just as US programmers have to use correct grammar for inverted commas -- for once (i.e. putting end of sentence punctuation marks outside the inverted commas).

 

I would only write sidewalk in direct speech, though.

England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

George Bernard Shaw

[EnderAndrew]

Science isn't about proving anything.

 

Science is about observations, hypothesis, and then often disproving things.

 

It's impossible to prove anything, though we can disprove a theory.

 

Scientific process I firmly support. I however don't support all the prevalent theories of the scientific community. I think people accept them because "smart" people have proven them all to be true. Why shouldn't we accept them?

 

The belief in science is as much a leap of faith as the belief in God. I didn't phrase that as well as I could have previously.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The belief in science is as much a leap of faith as the belief in God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think belief in God is more of a leap of faith than belief in science.

 

Belief in science is based on some evidence and allows the possibility of being disproved.

 

Belief in God is based not on evidence but on faith, and allows no possibility of being disproved.

 

Believers often say that science is as much of a religion as Christianity or Islam, but I've yet to see a convinving justification for this.

[EnderAndrew]

Believers often say that science is as much of a religion as Christianity or Islam, but I've yet to see a convinving justification for this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I often use gravity as an example of science since this is perhaps the most commonly accepted law of physics. Also, you don't have to have a great understanding of science to understand gravity.

 

It is commonly accepted that science is based off evidence, and religion is based on faith in the abscene of evidence. So, let's take gravity.

 

If you were to drop a pen, it would fall to the ground. Logical leaps seem to suggest that objects drop down. However, perspective tells us that down is relative. If we look at a scale larger than our own world, down doesn't exist really. We then theorize that objects of smaller mass are attracted to objects of larger mass. This attraction only extends so far, as we call a gravitational well.

 

A large problem then exists when we start to observe how objects in space react to each other. Our calculations on gravity don't seem to work, because when studying that appear to have gravitational relationships with each other in space, we can only account for 10% of the mass that should be making various gravitational pulls.

 

Unless 90% of the mass of the universe is hiding from any means of detection we have, we don't really understand gravity.

 

Science can't accept it's previous theory was flawed. Science can't accept that we need a new perspective on the whole picture. Science plucks an answer from the heavens and gives it to us with no real rhyme or reason.

 

Dark matter supposedly exists, which if it were to exist, would explain this missing mass. We have no real evidence to suggest dark matter does exist, but we teach it in classes to cover what science can explain.

 

When you really dig, you will find countless stopgaps such as dark matter.

 

Science is all about perspective. When man stands and looks out on the horizon, we see what clearly appears to be the sun revolving around the earth, and that is what science claimed for ages. A perspective comparing shadows in different locales led us to realize the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, but rather vice versa. When we launched into space, a clearer perspective helped reassure the now commonly accepted belief that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

Scientific theories are guesses at explaining things we can't explain. Religion is a means of explaining the universe as well. There are those that would contend that meditation, prayer, or prophetizing is just as valid a means for gathering answers as observations and calculations.

 

Surely, as we have logic, we also have emotions. What you feel can be in contradiction to what you think in a given moment. If there is logical truth, can there not also be emotional truth?

 

I'm not saying one is more valid than the other. I just think the two are far more similiar than people are willing to let on.

[213374U]

I however don't support all the prevalent theories of the scientific community.  I think people accept them because "smart" people have proven them all to be true.  Why shouldn't we accept them?

Well, you're free not to accept them (in fact you are encouraged not to), but until you can prove them wrong (which most likely is impossible due to the nature of science), the rest of the world will still be working under the present principles of science.

 

I don't "support" string theory, because I don't know enough about it to actually convince other people about its validity and I can't use it to counter other people's ideas. But that doesn't mean I think string theory is wrong. What, are scientists worldwide trying to fool everyone?

 

 

The belief in science is as much a leap of faith as the belief in God.

It sure would be, if science needed belief. But it doesn't. Science is about the observation of the underlying natural patterns that can be recognized and structured into mathematical systems. Mathematics don't need you to believe in them, and by association, neither does science.

[EnderAndrew]

It sure would be, if science needed belief. But it doesn't. Science is about the observation of the underlying natural patterns that can be recognized and structured into mathematical systems. Mathematics don't need you to believe in them, and by association, neither does science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently you've never heard of postulates?

 

Postulates are unprovable commonly accepted "truths" of mathmatetics and sciences. We use them as starting grounds for futher theories and proofs.

 

We simply believe them to believe them.

[213374U]

Apparently you've never heard of postulates?

 

Postulates are unprovable commonly accepted "truths" of mathmatetics and sciences.  We use them as starting grounds for futher theories and proofs.

 

We simply believe them to believe them.

And apparently you've never heard of how inductive reasoning works.

 

You're free to enounce a postulate, but then, you're supposed to back its validity up by either a reductio ad absurdum proof or experimental evidence that establishes your postulate as the most likely explanation for something, until someone can come up with something more solid.

 

That kind of reasoning is just as valid as deductive reasoning, only it proceeds backwards. You don't just make stuff up.

[EnderAndrew]

Except that you do.

 

Postulates may make sense, and that's why they are accepted. But you can't say that science is based solely on evidence, when postulates are a large part of science and they are unproven.

 

You can't deny that science requires a portion of belief and then discount how we are expected to believe something that is unproven as as the basis of evidence for everything else.