It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes, really.... if science was 100% correct, why do all those things you listed include probabilities?? Don't you think that if it was 100% there wouldn't be a need for a margin of error??? Why is a 400k ohm resistor actually 400k ohm + or - 3%?? Science say the resistor is 400k ohm, so why does my volt meter read 400,321 ohm? And on the next 400k resistor I get 399,013 ohm?? Because ALL SCIENCE HAS MARGIN OF ERROR!! Meaning, it's not 100% correct!! It's correct, with a tolerance of + or - 3%!
It is important to note that the fundamental principle behind science is that IT CAN ALWAYS BE PROVED WRONG. That, right there clearly states that science KNOWS it's wrong. So to say science is right, goes against science. On the other hand, Religion CAN NEVER BE PROVED RIGHT.
Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven statement that is believed true is known as a conjecture.
So if Science knows it is wrong, and Religion is nothing but conjecture; the logical conclusion is that EVERYONE INVOLVED IS WRONG.
and so then, who is right?
be honest. i'm not easily fooled.
No one is right, that's my point. No one has ever been right. Science has NEVER been 100% correct, which means it isn't right, and Religion can't provide the proof it needs to show that it is 100% correct. If NO ONE can provide ABOLUTE PROOF, then NO ONE IS RIGHT!
And we will never get absolute proof. I'm wrong. You are wrong. Niel Degrass Tyson is wrong. Einstein was wrong. The Pope, he's wrong too. You're kids, their friends, your neighbors... Face it, NO one knows wtf is really going on. That's why we continue to observe.edit on 1-11-2013 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)
Welp you're right, I guess we should just give up on trying to understand everything. All right everyone let's all shed our clothes and technology and go back to throwing poop at each other. There's no point to these conversations or trying to understand the universe around us, so says some random forum goer on the internet.edit on 1-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
Good thing you are so high and mighty to put me in my rightful place... And I must be just some random Internet user, after all, I've only been registered on this site for 7 years. It's not like you with your whole year of being a part of this community...
edit on 1-11-2013 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)
“God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.”
". . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it." - Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes
Einstein rejected the label atheist.
Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
Quotes are very easy to misuse to give a false impression of what an author means. Many people develop their ideas over long passages, and no single quote can do justice to their argument. Many people, especially scientists, play devil's advocate with their own ideas, so some of their quotes will say exactly the opposite of the point they are supporting. In other cases, good summary quotes exist, but the quoter is either unable or unwilling to find and use them. It is extremely easy to find out-of-context quotes that do damage to a person's main ideas, even unintentionally. Quotes should probably be regarded with more skepticism than any other references.
Creationists use quotes as appeals to authority. They apparently see the printed word as a weighty authority. In science, though, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself, so that is what writers refer to. Quotes cannot substitute for evidence.
For those looking for a quick answer to the question of whether this item is literally true, we'll state up front that it is not. Nothing remotely like the account related above appears in any biography or article about Albert Einstein, nor is the account congruent with that scientist's expressed views on the subject of religion. His name has simply been inserted into an anecdote created long after his death in order to provide the reading audience with a recognizable figure and thus lend the tale an air of verisimilitude
The name of Einstein gets used in legends whose plots call for a smart person, one whom the audience will immediately recognize as such (i.e., modern tellings of Einstein an ancient legend about a learned rabbi who switches places with his servant feature Albert Einstein in the role of esteemed scholar). This venerated cultural icon has, at least in the world of contemporary lore, become a stock character to be tossed into the fray wherever the script calls for a genius.
An example of misuse would be appealing to Albert Einstein, a noted authority on physics, to support one's political or religious beliefs. While Einstein undoubtedly had political beliefs, he was certainly no politician and was not experienced in politics to the point where he could make a more informed judgement than most people. He, along with the likes of Stephen Hawking, are often quote-mined as being either for or against the existence of God, and the fact that such "authorities" believed in it one way or another is cited as supporting one position over the other. The fact that the same individuals can be selectively quoted to back up either position should give a good indication of how useful they are as genuine points in an argument. The opinion of an authority speaking outside his/her field is sometimes worth considering because that person is intelligent and knowledgeable about many subjects, but its value is limited.
Thus, a more accurate phrase would be "Argument or appeal to misleading authority."
reply to post by AbleEndangered
Why do people keep posting false information as evidence for their arguments, do no creation/ID proponents know how to use Google and vet sources?edit on 11/5/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
“I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are mere details.”
In wiki quotes "God" comes up 118 times on Albert Einstein's page!!
Thinking about it...
I have never met an Atheist in my life!!
reply to post by AbleEndangered
Don't presume to know what I am. You don't know anything about me except what I have willingly shown you. Which is a relatively tiny amount. I assure you, I am not a theist. I have tried being a Christian, and it failed horribly. Felt like I was betraying everything that makes me who I am. I fully accept and embrace the fact that I believe in no god.
What even is a god? What are the parameters for determining something as being a god? We don't even know that. So I have no ground whatsoever for believing in a god.edit on 5-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
reply to post by AfterInfinity
Why are you mad at God??
Its just a simulation he stuck you in...edit on 5-11-2013 by AbleEndangered because: subtraction, wrong thread
You forgot to add the caveat, "if he exists."