The Real Eve

[Hortlund3]

And btw...your reply back there "I could if at that time I was hooked up to one of those machines... then I could prove it."

That means you cant prove it...right? So does the fact that you cant prove it make it any less true?

[midnight Target]

I think the real point here is that a religious belief tends to encourage acceptance, while a scientific belief tends to encourage further questioning.

I'd rather have the questions.

[Thrawn]

Hortlund, get back in your cage.


I believe in faith.  I don't believe in the thing that is the object of that faith.

[Kanth]

He is the man that knows that God exists.

he may also be the first man to light his own farts..but there is no evidence of this..

but I have faith that it's true.

Originally posted by Hortlund3


I think it was the same guy who looked at the ground and saw that it was flat actually. Or maybe Im thinking of the guy who stood in his observatory watching the sun and the moon and the stars move all over the sky while the earth was not moving at all.

[miko2d]

Hortlund3: That means you cant prove it...right? So does the fact that you cant prove it make it any less true?
 Sure it does - for me. You are the only one who has access to your brain without some intermediate hardware involved.

 Statement "I love X" may be true for you but statement "Hortlund loves X" is not true for me or anyone else - it's just an unfounded speculation. In order for us to agree on it as a fact we would need some kind of verification.

 Actually SW science has never explained anything about reality, all they are able to do is describe reality.
 You are wrong here - any system of knowlege, including religion, describes reality. The unique property of science is that it makes usable and verifiable predictions and that all its statements can be disproved.
 There is a whole lot of knowlege that does not fall under the definition of scientific knowlege because there is no way to disprove it or make verifiable predictions based on it even if it were true.
 And science does explain things rather than describe them - e.g. chemist determines the properties of a compound that does not exist yet using known properties of elements and known chemical principles - and then verifies them, not combines elements and then describes what the heck he got. In fact only when it became able to make prediction did chemistry became a science.

There are two possible answers here, either science will start moving into advanced theories of gravitational waves or gravitational strings or whatever (something that will only lead to yet another "why" question from me. Or science will lose its temper with pesky me and say...
 Scientist woulds say - "we don't know yet but what we do know is consistent with all observation and experiments".

 miko

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Hortlund3
Science has never been able to answer the "why" question...did you know that?

An example: I hold my mug of coffee above my desk and then drop it. I ask science why the mug falls down on the desk and spills coffee all over.
-"Gravity", they answer.
-"Why does gravity make my cup of coffee hit the desk?" I ask
-"Because large objects attract smaller objects, in this case, earth (large object) attracted your cup of coffee (smaller object), the larger object pulled the smaller object towards itself.
-"But why does large objects attract smaller objects?" I ask.

There are two possible answers here, either science will start moving into advanced theories of gravitational waves or gravitational strings or whatever (something that will only lead to yet another "why" question from me. Or science will lose its temper with pesky me and say
 -"Because thats the way it is" <-- (that is NOT a valid answer to a "why" question btw).

Actually, the why question can be answered all the way down to protons, neutrons and electrons... and even smaller matter (yes, it does exist and we have found it).

The only limit to how many why questions you can ask before they stop answering is when you get too confused to form a sensible question.

But you still failed with the point being that it doesn't answer "why"... it answers plenty of whys. It just doesn't answer the "why" of why we are here.

But then again, the only thing that comes close to accomplishing that is a book that may or may not be completely fictional.

Science is well on it's way to explaining the "why" of why we are here and all that. It's been doing that quite well for years now.

Religion, OTOH, just relies on you believing without further delving into the subject.

Of course, the easiest route to understand is the simplest... and believing in a "God" is the simplest. Nevermind all that technical mumbo jumbo, it's just confusing and too hard to understand.

But when I ask you the "why" of why God created us, why he saves some of us, why he condems others, etc... you'll be just as stumped as the scientist you are asking the "why" questions of when he runs out of proven theories... meanwhile the priest is explaining the answer to his "why" questions with a 5000 year old book written by extremely simple people that has been revised/translated/butchered since.

That's all I'm saying.
-SW

[Hortlund3]

Originally posted by miko2d
Statement "I love X" may be true for you but statement "Hortlund loves X" is not true for me or anyone else - it's just an unfounded speculation. In order for us to agree on it as a fact we would need some kind of verification.

[/b]
I get the impression here that you are of the belief that there are no objective truths? For the sake of argument, lets assume that there exists something we can call "truth". My statement "I loved my first girlfriend" is true. Although I am the only one who knows this and I have no way of proving it, yet it is true. And the point is, it is true, even though I cannot verify it in any way. You need only ask yourself the same question to realize that there can be  such things as truth without proof.  

You are wrong here - any system of knowlege, including religion, describes reality. The unique property of science is that it makes usable and verifiable predictions and that all its statements can be disproved.

[/b]
In what way does that make me wrong?

 There is a whole lot of knowlege that does not fall under the definition of scientific knowlege because there is no way to disprove it or make verifiable predictions based on it even if it were true.

[/b]
So scientific knowledge is not neccesarily the same thing as "truth"...correct? Scientific knowledge is not constant, it changes over time depending on what the latest set of verifiable predictions are. Truth however, never changes.

 And science does explain things rather than describe them - e.g. chemist determines the properties of a compound that does not exist yet using known properties of elements and known chemical principles - and then verifies them, not combines elements and then describes what the heck he got. In fact only when it became able to make prediction did chemistry became a science.

[/b]
Disagree, the only exact science is math, and that is only because we made it up.

Scientist woulds say - "we don't know yet but what we do know is consistent with all observation and experiments".

Exactly.

Now let me ask you if you agree with the following:
Using science, or scientific knowledge as a base for argumentation for or against the creation or existence of a higher being is pointless because science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.

Science will never know whether science has access to all avaliable parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anyting with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Hortlund3
Science will never know whether science has access to all avaliable parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anyting with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.

Hortlund, you don't know that at all. Science is still very young in terms of human existance.

I'll bet you 80 years ago, you would of said that we couldn't create life.

Scientists created a sheep from the cells of another sheep.
-SW

[sling322]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Reminds me of a Chris Rock skit... God used to talk to everyone, atleast that's how it is in the bible... now-a-days, who's he talking to? Those people on the street talking to themselves? The ones proclaiming to be God? The ones proclaiming to be messengers of God?

Did he decide to just stop talking once the bible was written?

 

That aint no Chris Rock skit.  Thats Chris Rock in the movie "Dogma", isnt it?

[Hortlund3]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Actually, the why question can be answered all the way down to protons, neutrons and electrons... and even smaller matter (yes, it does exist and we have found it).

[/b]
Not really, the answer to the why question on the "proton, neutron and electron"-level is still "large objects attracts smaller objects"..or rather, "all objects attract eachother depending on mass" (some engineer type can probably give a better definition of gravity, but you get the idea).

The only limit to how many why questions you can ask before they stop answering is when you get too confused to form a sensible question.

But you still failed with the point being that it doesn't answer "why"... it answers plenty of whys. It just doesn't answer the "why" of why we are here.

But then again, the only thing that comes close to accomplishing that is a book that may or may not be completely fictional.

Science is well on it's way to explaining the "why" of why we are here and all that. It's been doing that quite well for years now.

[/b]
Yeah, sure...
"First there was nothing, then it exploded" <-- Big Bang theory.

Religion, OTOH, just relies on you believing without further delving into the subject.

Of course, the easiest route to understand is the simplest... and believing in a "God" is the simplest. Nevermind all that technical mumbo jumbo, it's just confusing and too hard to understand.

But when I ask you the "why" of why God created us, why he saves some of us, why he condems others, etc... you'll be just as stumped as the scientist you are asking the "why" questions of when he runs out of proven theories... meanwhile the priest is explaining the answer to his "why" questions with a 5000 year old book written by extremely simple people that has been revised/translated/butchered since.

The fun/sad part is that you dont realize that you are clinging to science the same way others are clinging to their religion. You wont find any more answers from science than you will find in the Bible. Somehow that escapes you.

Once you realize that science does not provide answers, only descriptions or observations, maybe then you will realize that just as you accuse others of taking the easy route, by putting their faith in God, you yourself are also taking the easy route, but in another direction, you are just putting your faith in science.

[Apache]

Scientists created a sheep from the cells of another sheep.

Hence, had someone said we couldn't create life, they would have, in fact, been correct.

[AKSWulfe]

How so?

They didn't use embryos... they just used genetic matter.
-SW

[Hortlund3]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe


Hortlund, you don't know that at all. Science is still very young in terms of human existance.

I'll bet you 80 years ago, you would of said that we couldn't create life.

Scientists created a sheep from the cells of another sheep.
-SW

That is not to create life. Cell=life. So science has been able to take life, and mix with it. Come on SW, you have to do better than that.

And science is exactly as old as humankind itself.

[AKSWulfe]

Sling- it was on one of his DVDs... think it was Bigger and Blacker.

Hortlund-
Not really, the answer to the why question on the "proton, neutron and electron"-level is still "large objects attracts smaller objects"..or rather, "all objects attract eachother depending on mass" (some engineer type can probably give a better definition of gravity, but you get the idea).

Errr... okay... whatever, that's the most basic explanation I've ever seen. If that's where you think the end the knowledge of those subatomic particles ends... maybe you need to take some college level science classes.

But I digress, your understanding of science is apparently quite minimal if you think the only thing a scientist can tell you to answer your "why" questions is "larger mass attracts smaller mass". It's quite a bit more than that.

Yeah, sure...
"First there was nothing, then it exploded" <-- Big Bang theory.

There's far more theories than just that one. But hey, the world was created in 8 God days. As opposed to human days which would be a couple trillion years... with no mention of many things that have happened in earth's past. Dinosaurs, ice age, cave men... yeah, the Bible has it so much more believable.

The fun/sad part is that you dont realize that you are clinging to science the same way others are clinging to their religion. You wont find any more answers from science than you will find in the Bible. Somehow that escapes you.

Wanna bet? The bible doesn't explain gravitational fields to me, orbits, matter, the basics of everything around us that we can't see but we experience everyday. While science DOES explain that. Well, atleast it does when you actually study it all.

Once you realize that science does not provide answers, only descriptions or observations, maybe then you will realize that just as you accuse others of taking the easy route, by putting their faith in God, you yourself are also taking the easy route, but in another direction, you are just putting your faith in science.

Once you realise that your grasp of science is only on the surface, you will understand that it's not simply taking what science has explained and believing it. But actually researching it and putting 2 and 2 together.

But hey, if you believe 5000 year old simpletons... be my guest, don't hurt me. I never attempted to explain why we are here... maybe there really is no "why" at all.

Not everything makes sense, the need for a God is to add order to an otherwise chaotic universe.

Any day an asteroid could strike this world. Religious people will say that was God hitting the delete key... I'll just sit back and say, "Shit happens."
-SW

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Hortlund3
That is not to create life. Cell=life. So science has been able to take life, and mix with it. Come on SW, you have to do better than that.

You think that's any different than how we birth babies? Just two genetic codes mixing together. The cell already exists.

And science is exactly as old as humankind itself.

Math maybe... but that's only a portion of science. They weren't exactly examining what a tree lived off of... it was taken care of God, remember?
-SW