syo
Well-Known Member
i define nothing as absolute zero. in our universe there is no absolute zero.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
science vs religion?
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
syo
Well-Known Member
the evidence is actually what sounds logical.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Repox
Truth Seeker
Your example of marbles is akin to my idea of narrowing specific variables for probability outcomes. Which combination of elements (colored marbles) produced God's intelligent design. Maybe the study doesn't exist.
For the marble analogy, I think one marble idea is too limited. I was thinking of a large number of variables which combine to produce another phase in the progression of the universe. I will research for an example.
Here is a reference for "elements." I think that is the direction to proceed.
Origin of the Elements
There are many references for the probability problem. Here are some that are more relevant to our discussion. As you might expect, studies or very abstract and without specific variables for a strong conclusion. I’ll keep looking for references.
http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html
http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html
http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/
Here Is an excellent reference for elements, most relevant. I am assuming there were many variables which constituting the most significant of events for the correct combination. Like one dozen in a matching variable set.
The elements of the universe point to creation - creation.com
Last edited:
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
In addition to be a ridiculously lame comment, you also cannot spell very well.
And I comprehend completely how there can be something in nothing, although you evidently cannot.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
Indubitably so.
Logos11
New Member
All right, I think I understand what you are saying. Your implying, how could I apply basic laws of science to 'magic' I guess you mean that even if a supernatural being does exist, then how would we be able to encapsulate his methods with our scientific world. It would just be incoherent right?
But I didn't suggest this, neither did I speak of 'magic' I was simply speaking of science. Let's go on a little journey, and I hope you can understand my resolution. Do you know what is the origin of science and where the word 'science' originated? Science comes from the Latin word:- "scientia" which means 'knowledge'. But before science was science by itself, it was philosophy. Science actually branched from philosophy, which was a study of the "way" all things worked and said to be pursued by those who "loved wisdom" the word in itself coming from the Greek phrase, "Lover of wisdom" And wisdom refers to the enactment of knowledge and is said to be possessed by one who has grasped the concept of the science (knowledge) of a particular subject. It is closely related with the ability of the human mind to obtain and grasp new information that will help to further understand the mechanics and structure of all things. So science in itself was once coined 'natural philosophy'
But, our answers lie in what exactly is 'all things'? And what is nature? And why was it necessary that science should only be a branch of philosophy? What is this sacred twist of etymology? You see, philosophy is actually a higher form of science. Like a woman giving birth to a child; a lesser being, with her same DNA, so philosophy; the study of things once deemed abstract; gave birth to science. What i'm trying to show in this is: even in the way that science unfolded, it shows science metamorphosing from transcendental origins.
Did you know that neutrinos, an elementary particle, can freely pass through matter undetected and unreacted? And that although it did not exist in the world of science until 1959, various reactions and proclamations pointed to its existence? And that most things existing actually descended from this type of particle? The things that are seen were simply gateways to understanding these unseen particles. Did you also know that Albert Einstein finished formulate his theory of general relativity in 1905, but was basically a nobody until 1919 when it was fully proven? The laws of general relativity did not exist in the world of accepted science until 1919, but it sure as sure was there. Every new discovery, is an extension of what already exists, whether an ancestor or descendant, and so is Deity.
No matter which field or department we are viewing we'll find this fingerprint. An ethereal ladder, and things natural as the final rung. The last imprinting of something far greater and divine. The laws of unfolding and reproduction clearly shows that all things have an origin, whether biological, cosmic, or molecular. Every new state and chemical reaction, is the unraveling of the characteristics of the reactant parents. It is the passing of information from one successive element to another. It's in the laws of motion, stating that a an object cannot be displaced unless a primary force acts. In the kinetic theory of matter stating that particles are always in constant motion. It is all around.
You speak as if the boundaries of science are limited to what can be touched and felt, but we must extend this view.The laws of science did not spawn into existence overnight, but like all things, has an origin, and a place. So then we must extend our concept of science into what cannot be seen, and what we use to understand what cannot be seen, is a form of what can be seen. The laws of science shout one thing clearly, "We are in a form of what cannot be seen, and we are here to explain it!" Goodnight!
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Okay, let me explain, because I think you are using "deepities" to try and set up a narrative of natural processes which requires belief in what "cannot be seen."
But what your really trying to do is "have your cake and eat it to." On one hand, you want to use the observations of scientific inquiry to demonstrate connections, but then discount them al by appealing to processes and causes that have no ability to be observed physically.
Despite how much time and effort you put into your response here (which I do appreciate), I don't think you addressed my point. How can you use our observations of nature,
if there are unseen forces moving it?
For example, consider that we are on a farm, measuring the output of food in a certain stretch of farmland. We predict the yield based on several factors: rainfall, soil, density of crops, temperature, etcetera. . .
If there yield is 10% higher than we expect, we're going to be happy. And we'd want to know why that is the case. What happened to produce our higher yield?
We have several conclusions we can draw:
1. One or more factors increased the yield beyond our expectations.
2. There is a variance in the yield, and we just had an outlier.
3. An unseen outside force produced more yield for us.
Both 1 and 2 suggest that our world has rules, and we can actually improve the outcomes of our lives because we can make predictions, look at results, and adjust practices.
But 3 is disempowering. It suggests that our world is not in our control, and that ultimately, we are fates to whatever this unseen force decides the outcomes should be. Furthermore, you cannot ever rely on 1 and 2 to predict outcomes of your yield anymore, and the effort you put into increasing your yield is pointless.
The further problem with your model is that you create an illusory efficacy, where you use our knowledge of 1 and 2 to find convenient connections that build your narrative, using the very science of agriculture to make your case, forgetting that you complete discounted the science by appealing to unknown forces in 3.
Remember, if unseen forces are variables that effect outcomes, then whatever observations we make are ultimately suspect. Your model only shows us that we know absolutely nothing, because you appeal to another non-observable set of variables that makes our observations obsolete.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Well, no . . . to be concise.
Here's a thought experiment or two:
If we use a simple ratio, comparing the amount of physical space that supports human life to the amount of space in the universe that probably doesn't support human life, what percentage of the universe would you calculate that supports human life?
Considering that the universe is still expanding, that number may be so small, and getting smaller. . . Maybe even approaching zero. A nearly zero percent proportion of space that supports human life.
We could also use statistics. Let's say aliens from another dimension decided to take random scoops of space from our universe, and sift through it to look for signs of intelligent life. They scoop sections the size of our solar system a thousand times in random coordinates around the universe.
Based on our limited knowledge, there is a good chance that they will find zero signs of life in their 1000 random samples, and statistically conclude our universe doesn't support life at all.
Obviously, these are only thought experiements . . . and there is no current way to know that any of those assumptions are actually true. . . But intuitively it feels right to say that based on our current knowledge, almost the entire universe is probably incredibly hostile to human life. Heck, most of our own planet's surface is incredibly hostile to human life.
So when I see the links you posted, explain how amazingly fine-tuned the universe is, I think of these thought experiments.
If the universe were designed for life, it was very poorly done. And because (back to our original topic) we only have a single instance of this, it is impossible to know what changes specific variables would ultimately produce.
Perhaps the entire universe would be teeming with a multitude of intelligent life forms swimming in a universe sized bath of self-sustaining nutrients. . . Vast civilizations teeming with alien civilizations in intergalactic warfare? Absolutely nothing? Who could say?
But looking at the probability of the variables that produce humans on planet earth is a terrible way to go about statistical inference or design arguments.
Again, I hate repeating myself here, but we only have a single instance of a universe, and we are stuck inside it. There is no way to claim that the variables that "support life" in our universe is improbable or impossible, because there are no better or worse examples to compare it to.
But even if I were to grant evidence of design, we'd have to conclude, based on the evidence we have so far, that it was so poorly executed it may as well have been accidental anyway.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Had to read this. Philosophy asks "what if" questions. It looks beyond the nature of science to find the nature behind why gravity exists and how humans can think in and of itself. It's not religious (Socrates, I think, was poking holes in religious thoughts of the Romans. He was executed) and wasn't scientific. After awhile, it got people to question why things happen without believing "it's from the gods" or something like that. Then you have actual people instead of thinking people with seizures have demons in us, now we know, because of philosophy (the why) being the foundation of science (the what) we know it's a neurological condition instead. Philosophy has nothing to do with the unseen. It questions the unseen until science discovers the answers and it disproves the unseen explanations for things that can readily be proven by science (or our knowledge rather than our beliefs).
The unseen, by it's nature and the word itself, you are using as a pronoun but there is no noun. You can't identify who you are talking about (the pronoun) if the noun is an unseen person, place, or thing. It can't be philosophized to knowledge.
You literally cannot test something you cannot see.
You talked about everything has an origin. Actually, no. That's an illusion on our part. Everything is created from one thing into another by the combination of already existing things. You're talking as if a circle has a beginning or origin.
If it does, why would the nature of this origin need to be unseen when everything we have found out so far about life has in one way or another been seen? If anything, if there were an origin, so far it is hidden from us not an unseen force.
The closest "force" you can get to being a noun that cause cosmic emotion is energy. I'm in default mode so I don't know your religion; but, if you believe in god, energy would be god. It's a noun (a thing), causes motions as in your post, creates babies, stars, and thought processes. Energy keeps us alive. Energy keeps us warm. Without energy, we wouldn't be alive.
We can test energy. It is something we cannot physically see but we can test it in many many ways. In this respect, yes, god (something that puts life in transit) exists.
As a personification, being, or entity? No. That thinking comes from humans. Lions and plants don't think we come from a being. If lions can talk, they'd probably say a lion, if plants can talk, another plant. Only what we are familiar with. We wouldn't say an alien is god. Since many believers say they are limited in knowledge, they wouldn't put themselves in a god-position (unless god has a son, then that's the exclusion or way to get away with suggesting humanity's closeness with god).
If something is seen by default it cannot be unseen at the same time.
If there is a force, it is hidden and something we have not discovered. Unless we are comfortable with not having an origin-that circles don't have begining nor end, you an talk about unseen forever and no one can prove you right or wrong.
That's the second exclusion. No one can prove either way because it cannot be tested: there is no science because it cannot be seen.
syo
Well-Known Member
Because god is the strongest force.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Any creation scientist would put God and the Bible first. He was a scientist second. This is part of having faith. It becomes the most important part. An atheist scientist would put science and man first. This makes all the difference. Just a little faith goes a long way and makes all the difference.
You said you did not lack experience so i assumed you did not lack experience.
So stop moving the goalposts
Fair enough, no point in going further but i never said as, but i did say in, space is full of stuff, including light, gasses, water, rock etc and therefore not empty. Look up at the night sky, do all those stars look like emptiness?
Reading descriptions for children is not going to help you learn a complex subject.
No, no one can, they can only assume based on the actions and content of our universe any by mathematical modeling.
Perhaps you simply didn't comprehend, after all children's texts are where you set your sights. And it was not sarcasm but a valid plea
james bond
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Its called dyslexia, i suppose you have always mocked disability.
What? Which northing are you referring? The nothing with dimensions (in which case, yes something may also be within those dimensions. Or the nothing without dimensions?
So despite spouting you are working on the statistics, in actual fact all you have is hot air. Thanks for the clarification
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Read my other post. #206 Im about to go to work and have no time to fuss with you about "moving goal post." Thats not my style period. Let it go.
Bye, have fun