Non-Believers who think science has all the answers, riddle me this

Originally posted by AQuestion
You have a problem with me questioning science because I am a believer...My question would be equally valid if I was an atheist and they are asking the same questions as me in scientific circles, it is just a theory and should not be treated as an absolute truth to be used against believers until it has been proven.

You failed to see the point i made:

1. You are questioning a scientific hypothesis...not scientific fact.

2. You fail to see the difference between Hypothesis and Theory. They are not the same thing.

a. A scientific hypothesis is not a scientific theory
b. A scientific theory is not a scientific fact
c. A scientific fact is not a singularity or absolute truth

Your question is not equally valid unless you think your religion is a hypothesis, in which case your question would be valid. But as far as i am concerned, there is no need to continue this thread since you do not know what science is. Science does not claim that repeated observations are absolute truth.

You disappoint me in your answer saying that basically if I am a believer that I should not test their hypothesis

I'm really interested in what experimental design you will come up with to test the multiverse hypothesis ( again it is not a theory or scientific fact, get your wording right).

reply to post by Doublemint


Dear Doublemint,

And the point of the OP is the point. That science is not an answer but a series of question and possible answers or theories. I like science and it helps us in our everyday life. Quantum physics is interesting; but, it is also showing the limits of what we understand. Let us look at it this way for a moment. We are limited in understanding, in the future we may understand more (that is history); but, we cannot claim to have all understanding today. I am not saying there are not answer, I am saying knowledge is a process.

When we begin believing in time travel and alternate universes (I seem to recall Hawking believed in 21 or 22 of them) then we have stopped looking for answers that make sense. When we mainstream scientists begin accepting time travel, we have a problem. The reason that nobody wanted to answer my question was because what is currently believed is utter nonsense, they seek to distance themselves from it because it is blatantly nonsensical. Will we understand better in 10 years, I hope so and believe we will continue; but, we will never have all the answers. We will always find new questions.

Science like any 'thing' makes more questions.
Science says 'Why' and 'How'.
Science is not looking for an answer, if it is can someone tell me the question?

The answer is there is no answer.
Unless of course we know the question.

reply to post by AQuestion

And the point of the OP is the point. That science is not an answer but a series of question and possible answers or theories.

Then wouldn't you admit Religion is a series of answers without questions or theories?

God seems to be the epiphany of causality, described a cosmological father figure, and laden with human characterists like "Mercy"," Love", "Anger" (according to some Theists and Deists)

Causality is an assumption, so is "no cause", as is "many causes" or even "infinite causes". We have to accept that we could be wrong due to a lack of evidence, and understanding of a cosmos that opperates beyond our imagination, and we may never comprehend it.

Religion is absolute, the doctrines don't suddenly change, unless, of course, you're stripping or changing "the word of God" (i,e, reformations of Christianity) or what we call "moderates".

Deists just inferr God, as a God of the gaps, when "intelligent design" falls over, they just imply that "GOD" set up the means for evolution to occur.

"God of the gaps" - They've set up the argument so that you can never win:-

This article is about a theological perspective and type of philosophical argument. For the "gap" interpretation of the biblical creation account, see "GAP CREATIONISM"

God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge, or that otherwise lack a plausible natural explanation.

"GOD OF THE GAPS"

reply to post by awake_and_aware


This thread is not going to be about God and I didn't ask about him, it is about current beliefs in quantum physics. If you wish to discuss God or disprove his existence, create a different thread.

The word religion is not defined.
God is another word that can not be defined.
God is the answer without questions and theories.

The questions and theories come from the insecurity of man.
As a baby we discover the world and learn to see it as separate to ourselves.
We grow to think the world is an obstacle that has to be conquered.
That is the belief.

After the world of 'things' has been well and truly questioned and no real satisfactory answer appears, it is realized that in fact there is no truth out there. There is nothing to hold on to.
Only when every 'thing', every belief has been seen through will the one true truth be known.

PS. Hope this is not off topic aquestion. I am saying that science does not have the answer, it does not even have the question.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

This thread is not going to be about God and I didn't ask about him, it is about current beliefs in quantum physics. If you wish to discuss God or disprove his existence, create a different thread.

So do you have any further purpose in this stated direction, now that at least I could respond adequately to your first 'test'? I'm not averse to metaphysical speculations, if that's what you want.

If this thread is only about science, it's a bit out of place.

reply to post by AQuestion


This thread is directed non-believers. Firstly, i've never met any non-believer who states "science has all the answers" There would be no "God" debate, if someone was under this impression.

I've already responded explaining how Multiverse is ONE metaphysical hypothesis (unfalsifiable) that was formed in correlation with findings from Quantam Theorem. I've admitted that science accepts it doesnt have all the answers, and that updated theories do have the potential to overtake, providing there is reason for them to. Science doesn't ask that Mutliverse theorem "makes sense", it's a metaphysical theory, an unfalsifiable theory, but not completely irrational.

As the OP addresses non-believers, I will contrast non-believer's arguments comparitively with the arguments of believer:-

The implication i get from their arguments is that answers can be found not only by science, but by having "faith" - Which by definition; is a belief, before having evidence.

I don't think my skeptical non-belief is irrational, nor do i make any positive claims, nor do most non-believers.

reply to post by AQuestion


true we don't know everything. But I don't see a reason why we can't learn everything if the human race is to survive long enough to do that. That is the race how fast can we find awnsers vs. killing ourselves off.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I have to say that I am really disgusted by the lack of any quality trolls. You cannot answer one question so you ignore it and attempt to divert the thread, that shows how pitiful your logic is. It only proves that you insincere, that you are just haters of others. Why do you bother spending all your time worrying about what Christians believe? Are you lives really that pitiful, answer the question and stay on topic, I am not even attempting to prove God and you cannot apparently find any defense for what you believe, the answer is then bug off.

I don't have the answers for the questions you proposed; I don't have enough knowledge but I do have an opinion about you. You give the impression (to me) of a condescending know it all....who does not give the other members on this thread any respect and certainly not much kindness. You seem to be full of anger and hate...I feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by AQuestion
I do mean to challenge. If you choose to constantly post on the Faith forum and tell us that we are stupid and that science has all the answers then riddle me this.

I have not called anyone stupid on the Faith forum. If you demonstrate that you are stupid, then that is a different story. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though. Science doesn't have all the answers; if it did, then a lot of scientists would be out of a job.

Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?

The multi-verse hypothesis makes sense on a basic level. It just says there are multiple universes outside our current universe. People have ideas of how these can come about or if they always were. Those ideas may or may not make sense to others.

Quantum Physics is a field of study, not a theory. Most of it doesn't make sense because I don't have a graduates degree in that field. I do understand some of the basics; as there are theories that explain quantum physics.

Please do, I know the theories quite well.

I doubt it. You've already shown this earlier in your post by showing a lack of understanding of: what a scientific theory is compared to a field of study, and that the multi-verse is actually a hypothesis. Unless you have evidence to the contrary since you understand those "theories" so well.

I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy.

It sounds like you want someone to spoon feed you the answers since you don't want to actively look for an answer. Since I'm no expert, and I can admit that, I'll have Thunderf00t explain it since he does have a degree in physics. There are 36 episodes, have fun learning! It is really easy to understand just like you asked!

How bout this, would you feel better if I came on the Science site and endlessly told you about God?

Sure, why not. Just make sure you bring some form of evidence for the God of the Bible. Oh wait, I forgot, you have faith. You know, the evidence of things not seen.

I posted there once, I quoted Dawkins and nobody agreed with him when he said the only thing we knew was real was matter, because he violated the science that we do know with that statement.

I'm curious as to what you posted. Was it one of the many quote's taken out of context from Christian web-sites?

Have fun kids. Don't forget, if you prove multiple realities are possible, you just proved heaven and hell are possible, have fun with that.

No, proving multi-verses doesn't prove your heaven and hell. It proves multiple REALITIES; you know, something we can observe or eventually see if they were proven. Heaven and hell are not reality. They are at best pseudo-scientific non-sense.

That was one of the better straw man arguments I have seen though, kudos.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

This thread is not going to be about God and I didn't ask about him, it is about current beliefs in quantum physics. If you wish to discuss God or disprove his existence, create a different thread.

So do you have any further purpose in this stated direction, now that at least I could respond adequately to your first 'test'? I'm not averse to metaphysical speculations, if that's what you want.

If this thread is only about science, it's a bit out of place.

edit on 5-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling

Dear bogomil,

Not a test, just a conversation. We decide who we will respond to, some do not wish to have more intimate conversations and with them, I will not. I believe this thread served it's purpose, who knows what threads we will see each other on in the future. Be well and look forward to discussing things with you in the future.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Dear awake_and_aware,

The thread was addressed to non-believers because I didn't want the "God" answer, I wanted a non-God answer to explain what is currently believed in science, not religion. The God answer to a question of physics, while a possibility to me, would not advance the understanding of the non-God answer. Perhaps, I should have asked the question without addressing it to any group.

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by AQuestion

 

true we don't know everything. But I don't see a reason why we can't learn everything if the human race is to survive long enough to do that. That is the race how fast can we find awnsers vs. killing ourselves off.

Dear Doublemint,

The answer to not killing ourselves off can be found even if we don't know all truth. We could have peace today without ever finding the Higgs Boson particle. We can have peace even if we don't agree on if there is a God, heck we can have peace without knowing a lot of things. I am a pacifist, many non-believers are also. Peace can be obtained while still having differences. Be well and peace to you.

Originally posted by caladonea

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I have to say that I am really disgusted by the lack of any quality trolls. You cannot answer one question so you ignore it and attempt to divert the thread, that shows how pitiful your logic is. It only proves that you insincere, that you are just haters of others. Why do you bother spending all your time worrying about what Christians believe? Are you lives really that pitiful, answer the question and stay on topic, I am not even attempting to prove God and you cannot apparently find any defense for what you believe, the answer is then bug off.

I don't have the answers for the questions you proposed; I don't have enough knowledge but I do have an opinion about you. You give the impression (to me) of a condescending know it all....who does not give the other members on this thread any respect and certainly not much kindness. You seem to be full of anger and hate...I feel sorry for you.

Dear caladonea,

Sorry you feel that way; but, go back and read how I was responded to and tell me how kind and courteous people were. They attempted to change the subject and belittle religion which I did not bring up, I did not see you correct them, perhaps because of your biases. In either case be well.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by AQuestion

 

true we don't know everything. But I don't see a reason why we can't learn everything if the human race is to survive long enough to do that. That is the race how fast can we find awnsers vs. killing ourselves off.

Dear Doublemint,

The answer to not killing ourselves off can be found even if we don't know all truth. We could have peace today without ever finding the Higgs Boson particle. We can have peace even if we don't agree on if there is a God, heck we can have peace without knowing a lot of things. I am a pacifist, many non-believers are also. Peace can be obtained while still having differences. Be well and peace to you.

Knowing the truth and everything else has nothing about saving ourselves I was just saying that there is no reason that we could not know everything there is to know execpt for the fact that we will more than likely kill ourselves before we reach that point.

Originally posted by Doublemint

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by AQuestion

 

true we don't know everything. But I don't see a reason why we can't learn everything if the human race is to survive long enough to do that. That is the race how fast can we find awnsers vs. killing ourselves off.

Dear Doublemint,

The answer to not killing ourselves off can be found even if we don't know all truth. We could have peace today without ever finding the Higgs Boson particle. We can have peace even if we don't agree on if there is a God, heck we can have peace without knowing a lot of things. I am a pacifist, many non-believers are also. Peace can be obtained while still having differences. Be well and peace to you.

Knowing the truth and everything else has nothing about saving ourselves I was just saying that there is no reason that we could not know everything there is to know execpt for the fact that we will more than likely kill ourselves before we reach that point.

Dear Doublemint,

There was an article today about a man with AIDS who has been completely cured. It stated that 1% of the population is immune to AIDS, one percent. That really surprised me, I didn't know you could be immune to it. I seem to recall reading that 5% of the population is immune to ebola also (survival rate of 10%). We have an amazing amount of diversity in the world. I personally do not believe we will ever kill everyone. I hate war and believe it should not be glorified. I like diversity; but, to work it requires acceptance more than conformance and agreement.

As for knowledge, I think it only increases rather than ends. On a humanity level, we know all we can know at any given second; but, on an individual level we can continue to grow in knowledge and thereby the totality of what is known is ever increasing. An ever expanding knowledge universe. At least that is my perspective. There are many who believe that knowledge should be passed on rather than discovered, taught rather than learned overtime, I believe it is more like a opening flower. Describe it in totality and then deconstruct down, not the other way around. We are free to differ on this point.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Your ignorance knows no bounds...you are here today

1. typing on your computer
2. Using electricity
3. Ride in a car/bus/plane or bicycle
4. Use medicine
5. Use toilet paper and tooth paste

And you are here today not acknowledging how far science has taken us...And it is because people started asking questions.

I don't see anything substantial that has come out of religion.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Thanks for your answer.

And just for the record (no patronization intended). The use of the word 'gnostic' can be confusing. I just learned another version than the 'gnostic religion' recently. When there's talk about gnostic theism/gnostic atheism, it means something like 'absolute' theism/atheism. If you already knew that, I apologize.

Quote: ["We cannot reconcile science with reality without using philosophy to guide us, the questions do not answer themselves."]

There's a constant feedback, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing some non-denominational theologians into it also.

Quote: ["We both agree that the answer to my question regarding quantum physics is a thought in motion and not a final answer, I will therefore ask you, what you do believe the answer is. Do you believe in alternate or parallel universes or cosmos? Be well."]

My answer is ofcourse subjective, and is just personal speculations.

I'm not that keen on parallel universes, and I do have some well-considered reasons for it. Depending on the reliability of 'Big Banging' (which I don't think is incompatible with continuous creation in zero-point physics), all universal manifestations started together and should thus have instantaneous FTL communication. That would make the universe rather 'conservative', sluggish, and not prone to be influenced by anomalies at zero-point level, branching off in the trousers of time.

For good or bad the idea of 'consciousness' as being what's beyond event horizon, appeals more to me. That implies an observer-created 'reality', which has some attractions. It can 'explain' why the different 'realities' all seem so 'real'.

Though the new-age "What the bleep do we know" version is rather dumb and sensationalist, as it suggests some 'observer' criteria leading straight to solipsism. The definition of 'observer' in this context needs some SERIOUS examination.

And we know VERY little, if anything, about consciousness per se.

I could drone on, it's a favourite subject of mine, but enough for now.

Thanks for asking. This is a position where theism can stretch a hand across to objective procedure, without anyone getting burned.

Dear bogomil,

As the thread has achieved it's purpose for me I am re-reading all the posts and am now willing to discuss other aspects. As I re-read the above I was impressed by your openness to possibilities. I apologize for being defensive at first, it allowed me to see who was worth discussing things with in the future. I don't wish to even begin discussing faith in anything with people that believe the mere fact that I am a Christian prohibits me from having any knowledge of other things. I wish to discuss things with atheists; but, not with ones that just wish to tell me how stupid I am for believing in a God or wish to tell me what my beliefs are without asking me and letting me speak for myself and that is what this thread exposed.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AQuestion

 

And the point of the OP is the point. That science is not an answer but a series of question and possible answers or theories.

Then wouldn't you admit Religion is a series of answers without questions or theories?

God seems to be the epiphany of causality, described a cosmological father figure, and laden with human characterists like "Mercy"," Love", "Anger" (according to some Theists and Deists)

Causality is an assumption, so is "no cause", as is "many causes" or even "infinite causes". We have to accept that we could be wrong due to a lack of evidence, and understanding of a cosmos that opperates beyond our imagination, and we may never comprehend it.

Religion is absolute, the doctrines don't suddenly change, unless, of course, you're stripping or changing "the word of God" (i,e, reformations of Christianity) or what we call "moderates".

Deists just inferr God, as a God of the gaps, when "intelligent design" falls over, they just imply that "GOD" set up the means for evolution to occur.

"God of the gaps" - They've set up the argument so that you can never win:-

This article is about a theological perspective and type of philosophical argument. For the "gap" interpretation of the biblical creation account, see "GAP CREATIONISM"

God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge, or that otherwise lack a plausible natural explanation.

"GOD OF THE GAPS"

edit on 5/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Dear awake_and_aware,

I didn't wish to discuss God at the beginning of the thread, I said what I was doing, I was fishing for people that would go right to telling me that there was no God rather than respond to what I did ask and THEN ask me what I believed. I did post in the Faith section. If you go back and see how the thread progressed you will discover that the site owner had eliminated a post (not mine and I don't remember what it said) because the person was obviously too rude. My guess is that he knew what I was up to. Bogomil even stated what I was doing and I said he was correct, yet, people persisted in attacking my assumed belief in God. While I do believe in God, it is most definately not the limited perspective that people assume. I would classify it in a more metaphysical yet still Christian explanation. In fact, that is the next thread I intend to begin. I do apologize to you if anything I said to you was less than kind. Please accept my apology and I look forward to hearing what you have to say in the future, obviously I am closing out this thread.