Before The Big Bang!

[metadigital]

In fact, according to Discordian Scripture and the saying of the prophet Mal-2, it is clearly stated that everything, even false things, are true.  Sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Falsity is true? What sort of doctrine is that?

 

Unless you are arguing that all things are true at all times (and we therefore live in a huge multi-verse of universes, which bifurcate into each possible result of all options in space-time, every time a choice is made, everywhere in the universe), or that all things are an illusion (e.g. Buddhists, Existentialists), i.e. Science is a phantasm, then Ki Rin is wrong.

 

 

PS If you are arguing that science is an illusion, then -- if you're right -- I'm probably talking to myself, anyway.

[Reveilled]

Falsity is true? What sort of doctrine is that?

There are three possible answers to this. The first answer, which we derive from our scripture, is "I don't know, man, I didn't do it."

The second answer, which is more explanatory, is that it's a very good doctrine for a religion based around the worship of the goddess of Chaos. If our religion made perfect sense, it wouldn't be much good as a chaotic religion.

 

The third answer, and much more elabourate and philosophical is this:

The truth of a statement is not objective, but rather subjective. Imagine looking at the stars. Now imagine you had a large transparent piece of plastic sheeting with a grid painted on it. You look through the grid and see that the consellation Orion is in grid B9. Now imagine that your friend is standing beside you, and he also looks through the grid. However, because he isn't standing where you are, he sees Orion in grid A9. Which grid is Orion in? A9 or B9?

 

So, by the same token, does the Earth go around the Sun, or the Sun around the Earth? Well, both are true. It's just that if you assume that the Sun goes round the Earth, it's bloody difficult to establish uniform laws of physics, so physicists instead take it that the Earth goes round the sun, because physics is easy that way. On the other hand, astrology is bloody difficult to do with the earth going round the sun, so astrologers do it the other way around.

 

Basically, Science is a "grid" which you can apply to the universe to make it appear to obey fixed rules, but it would be silly to assume that the fact that that particular grid makes everything look so neat and tidy makes it the only right one. It may be the most useful one, but it's not the only right one.

 

Science is not so much an illusion as a point of view.

 

 

Well, sort of. Personally, I like the second answer best.

[metadigital]

I prefer the first one, actually, but I will address my comments to the third.

 

If you say that the physics that describe our universe are just a subjective false reality, an illusion, then it is not very easy to have a conversation against it. However, it is remarkably less probable that a given illusion will be consistent across so many different scientific disciplines for so many different witnesses. Now there are an infinite series of possible levels of "truth" between "What science says is absolute truth" and "The universe of my experience is illusion", and it is conceivable that for every advance I made in arguing from the latter to the former, you might just as easily take the next-least -difficult to prove position, ad infinitum.

 

I would hold that, as appealing as your philosophy is from a chaotic stance, it is next to useless -- speaking form a utilitarian / logical positivism stance.

 

Equally, although the discussion on what is absolute truth is fraught with more of these sorts of arguments than can be addressed in an infinite series of lifetimes, I would invoke Occham and just get back to what knowledge we can use.

 

I mean, after all, even though the Earth and the Sun do revolve around each other, the Newtonian physics describes perfectly well how the size of the force driving their interaction is inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart, thus:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving

And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,

That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,

A sun that is the source of all our power.

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see

Are moving at a million miles a day

In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,

Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.

It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.

It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,

But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.

We go 'round every two hundred million years,

And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions

In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding

In all of the directions it can whizz

As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,

Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,

How amazingly unlikely is your birth,

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,

'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

:cool:

 

Now, can I have your liver?

[Reveilled]

Again, as you'll note, I didn't say science or the universe was an illusion. Lots of people can look at something in the same way and see the same thing.

 

I would hold that, as useful as your philosophies might be from an ordered and scientfic stance, they are boring -- speaking from a discordian stance.

 

Seriously, we should rename Occham's Razor the I'm-a-boring-stick-in-the-mud-who-insists-everything-has-to-make-logical-sense-and-can't -be-bothered-using-my-imagination-because-I-can't-prove-what-I-imagine Principle. I realise it's a long name, but it gets across the gist of the reason people use Occham's Razor in these arguments.

[metadigital]

Again, as you'll note, I didn't say science or the universe was an illusion.  Lots of people can look at something in the same way and see the same thing.

 

I would hold that, as useful as your philosophies might be from an ordered and scientfic stance, they are boring -- speaking from a discordian stance.

 

Seriously, we should rename Occham's Razor the I'm-a-boring-stick-in-the-mud-who-insists-everything-has-to-make-logical-sense-and-can't -be-bothered-using-my-imagination-because-I-can't-prove-what-I-imagine Principle.  I realise it's a long name, but it gets across the gist of the reason people use Occham's Razor in these arguments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it is also the main limiting factor to prevent Baley-like tsunami of philosobabble spam from every igqualified (like what I did there with prefix of opposition -- see I can be imaginative when it counts ) lunatic with an inadequate medical dosage.

 

There is plenty of room to speculate on such things as we haven't satisfactorily explained so far; e.g. the before of the beginning of the universe ...

[Darth Flatus]

I have observed that a lot of people who like to use occam's razor arguments to vehemently disprove god and stuff are also rampant conspiracy theorists. Somewhat of a paradox methinks.

[213374U]

Yeah. They are usually also fond of misusing the razor. "

[Reveilled]

Exactly. You're supposed to cut towards the elbow.

 

 

Sorry. I'm in a strange mood tonight.

[Darth Flatus]

... only tonight?

[EnderAndrew]

I'm tired. My brain hurts.

 

All hail Discordia!

[metadigital]

And no-one has yet claimed infalibility as a Pope of Discodia ... "

[EnderAndrew]

Infalibility is overrated.

 

You don't get make-up sex.

[metadigital]

Catholics give great ... um ... are familiar with repressed thoughts and therefore seem more in touch with their physical ... um ... they can take confession and seek forgiveness for all sorts of things, including deviations not mentioned die to the unknown rating of this forum ... AND a Pope of Discordia can make anyone a Saint, instantly (now that's something you can yell out at the appropriate moment!).

[Cantousent]

Oh, bite me, meta. The Pope would probably declare you a heretic if only he'd read my emails.

 

...And I only use the razor when I need a shave.

 

This discordia thing kind of sucks. It also blows. How's that for Chaos?

[julianw]

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

 

If the Big Bang created all matters of existence, which are governed by laws of science that can be discovered through studying of matter; then the Big Bang itself must occured by will but not by the laws that itself created. Hence, the Big Bang is not only the primal cause but also the primal will. Maybe, this can count for some sort of evidence of God. Anyone?

[EnderAndrew]

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

 

If the Big Bang created all matters of existence, which are governed by laws of science that can be discovered through studying of matter; then the Big Bang itself must occured by will but not by the laws that itself created. Hence, the Big Bang is not only the primal cause but also the primal will. Maybe, this can count for evidence of God. Anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt God can be proved by any means ever.

 

You believe in God, or you don't. And much the same, you believe in science or you don't.

 

I know we are taught by society to accept science today, much in the same way society taught all to believe in God before-hand.

 

I wonder how many people today know about such things as Dark Matter, and how our accepted principles of gravity don't really work. It might change their perspective on science.

 

I try to balance a belief in both with healthy does of pragmaticism.

[julianw]

I agree science and religion do not conflict, and I believe they should be practiced in a way that compliments each other. No one (well, maybe the prophets) can claim that they have full understanding of God, and science is equally limitless. So one should always search for proofs from both fields to test one's beliefs.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't think we should swear be beliefs if they can't stand to question.

[julianw]

We believe in religion and science. It doesn't mean we must believe in monotheism and gravity, and gravity, as you said, is already proved wrong. I just think we should keep an open mind in this progressive universe, and it shouldn't conflict with our faith in science or religion.

[Darth Flatus]

He didnt say gravity is proved wrong As far as we are concerened here on earth, with everything that we encounter here Newton's laws work.

 

Science isnt something to believe or disbelieve in, science is an investigative method. The results of which can be disputed and dicussed and changed as new information is discovered. It is open to change.

 

A lot of questions here are arising from the fact that people cannot grasp the scale of the idea of the big bang. It is a theory but being unable to understand it does not prve that ther is a god... or whatever.

[julianw]

I think many religious people believe in the big bang, too. They believe it is God who started it, which is one possible explanation. Of course, it is not the only one. But I think since the big bang did not happen by following the laws of this universe(these laws only govern the existence), its cause might have been willed by something else?

 

Science isnt something to believe or disbelieve in, science is an investigative method. The results of which can be disputed and dicussed and changed as new information is discovered. It is open to change.

 

But the study of science as means to discover the truth is something that requires faith in the method. I think there is the same approach to religion. When new prophets arrive and reveal new tablets, we investigate with an open mind just like we investigate new theories revealed by further study of science. See? Science and religion are not so different after all.

[213374U]

But the study of science as means to discover the truth is something that requires faith in the method. I think there is the same approach to religion. When new prophets arrive and reveal new tablets, we investigate with an open mind just like we investigate new theories revealed by further study of science. See? Science and religion are not so different after all. 

No. God is a metaphysical entity. Philosophy and religion deal with that but they lack an experimental metodology to prove beyond all doubt their postulates.

 

On the other hand, science deals with the physical. Due to the fact that science is based on proof, if a scientific statement is proven by experimental means, then we know it to be true. So far, no scientific law proven by this method has been found to be false. Limited, yes. Valid only within certain parameters, yes. But not false.

 

You might argue that there may be things outside the scope of science and even logic, and I would agree. But if that is so, then science isn't supposed to deal with them, at least not in the way we have built science.

 

That is why science doesn't require faith.

[julianw]

But don't you think that you must believe in the practice of science that it is the method to reveal truth about the physical world. The scientific methods have come a long way since the beginning of human race. I mean the contemporary science certainly makes more sense to us than studying nature simply through perception, but ancients have held similar beliefs in using perception alone to study nature. Hence, they believed that sun revolves around earth. But when methods or theories in science get out of date, we scratch them. Since we don't yet know everything about science, you can only say that we believe in the scientific methods.

And I think religion applies to metaphysics in a similar way. Science and religion are valid ways to study physics and metaphysics, but they are not stagnant and requires updates.

By the way, religion does not deal with God in western terminology all the time: Buddhism, Confuscism, etc..

[213374U]

I mean the contemporary science certainly makes more sense to us than studying nature simply through perception, but ancients have held similar beliefs in using perception alone to study nature. Hence, they believed that sun revolves around earth.

They had no way to prove their impressions. That is the difference between ancient philosophy and modern science. That is why, for instance, we have the Internet, and they didn't.

 

 

But when methods or theories in science get out of date, we scratch them. Since we don't yet know everything about science, you can only say that we believe in the scientific methods.

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".

 

 

And I think religion applies to metaphysics in a similar way. Science and religion are valid ways to study physics and metaphysics, but they are not stagnant and requires updates.

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.

[metadigital]

...

But the study of science as means to discover the truth is something that requires faith in the method. I think there is the same approach to religion. When new prophets arrive and reveal new tablets, we investigate with an open mind just like we investigate new theories revealed by further study of science. See? Science and religion are not so different after all. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What?

 

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

 

Secondly, your premise is totally flawed. To compare prophets who claim to speak the word of God with those scientists who work to discover the meaning of the universe by endless toil and ingenuity is like comparing a surfer to a shipwright. I know who I'd rather buy a boat from.