I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

What if it wasn't?

Would you be ok with that?

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Ruiner1978

What if it wasn't?

Would you be ok with that?

Of course I would be.

Interesting deflect. Did you just reverse project onto me?

From your response should I assume you wouldn't be ok if science proved the existence of God?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

From your response should I assume you wouldn't be ok if science proved the existence of God?

It would have to be one amazing proof.

Would you be ok if science proved there was no God?

You've dodged the question again and asked me what I've already answered.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the speed of light is variable? Because if you don't, then you have no reason to doubt the claim that the speed of light is constant. I trust Einstein over you. They clocked the speed of light back in Ancient Greece, by the way.

Do you know what you are saying, do you understand science

Please go back to the kiddie pool

As for the speed of light being variable, I suggest you check out ......what's his name, curly headed hipster, German I think, pokes his tongue out, something to do with the theory of relativity, Nobel prize winner, sure he was
Friends called him Al I think
Princeton, died in 55, 1955 that is, not 2055

Buggered if I can remember his name, was it e=mc hammer or something?

Sorry, just having a bit of fun
Please laugh with me

The what? Light can be slowed to a snails pace through various methods.

Technically, I CAN travel faster than light with my own legs.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Light always travels at the speed of light in that medium. The values for permittivity and permeability for the medium that light is propagating through set that velocity.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

If man can do it in months why can't nature. Mindless, really, me? Yet nature takes millions of years to make a diamond but only millennia to evolve an animal, seriously, mindless drone

It doesn't take a millennia to evolve an animal. It takes much longer than that.

etc etc....

well, it turns out that animals with adaptive traits in their genes "evolve" very very rapidly. Dogs are especially adaptive and evolving. I wish I could take the time to explain further, maybe a video would help.



There's a lot of non-science in this thread.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

What if that discovery was undeniable proof of the existence of God?

You really don’t get it, do you?

In science, there is no undeniable, final proof of anything. If that’s what you want, you’ll have to find it elsewhere.

Anyway, what do you imagine would constitute proof? Somebody turning water into wine, or rising from the dead? Any half-competent stage magician could produce either of those phenomena, or any other miracle you care to name. Unless, of course, the miracle was performed under scientifically controlled conditions; for example, if somebody was restored to life after displaying no electrocortical activity or other vital signs for three days. But then you’d have to bend the knee to science, wouldn’t you? Oh, dear. And even then it still wouldn’t prove the existence of God — how do we prove that it was God who did the miracle? Even if it were a being with Godlike powers, how would we know it was really God and not merely some hugely intelligent and powerful alien?

The fact is that it is impossible to produce any credible proof of the existence of God.

Ever. Under any circumstances.

This is nothing to do with the limits of current knowledge; it’s not as if we could know some day. It is because of the way God is defined — omnipotent, omniscient, etc. That definition makes it impossible for His existence ever to be proven — or disproven.

Now: I am still waiting to hear where physics falls apart (it certainly doesn’t do so at quantum mechanics, one of the most comprehensive and repeatedly verified physical theories there is) and what that falling-apart consists of.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

What if that discovery was undeniable proof of the existence of God?

You really don’t get it, do you?

In science, there is no undeniable, final proof of anything. If that’s what you want, you’ll have to find it elsewhere.

Then you agree with me that science doesn't have all the answers?

Anyway, what do you imagine would constitute proof? Somebody turning water into wine, or rising from the dead? Any half-competent stage magician could produce either of those phenomena, or any other miracle you care to name. Unless, of course, the miracle was performed under scientifically controlled conditions; for example, if somebody was restored to life after displaying no electrocortical activity or other vital signs for three days. But then you’d have to bend the knee to science, wouldn’t you? Oh, dear. And even then it still wouldn’t prove the existence of God — how do we prove that it was God who did the miracle? Even if it were a being with Godlike powers, how would we know it was really God and not merely some hugely intelligent and powerful alien?

I don't know what experiment would prove it, you're the expert, apparently, not me. But at least you're actually thinking about stuff now.

The fact is that it is impossible to produce any credible proof of the existence of God.

Ever. Under any circumstances.

That's awfully defeatist...

This is nothing to do with the limits of current knowledge; it’s not as if we could know some day. It is because of the way God is defined — omnipotent, omniscient, etc. That definition makes it impossible for His existence ever to be proven — or disproven.

I agree, nothing to do with the limits of current knowledge. More to do with your preconceptions of the subject.

Now: I am still waiting to hear where physics falls apart (it certainly doesn’t do so at quantum mechanics, one of the most comprehensive and repeatedly verified physical theories there is) and what that falling-apart consists of.

But things were just getting interesting!
OK, it's my understanding that certain laws in physics no longer apply or don't explain what's happening on the quantum level.
Untrue?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

OK, it's my understanding that certain laws in physics no longer apply or don't explain what's happening on the quantum level. Untrue?

Since science isn't based on belief, but knowledge, in order for you to explain what you're trying to say, you're going to have to use knowledge to do it

Did somebody just tell you certain laws in physics no longer apply? Then did you believe them?

a reply to: FlyingFox

First off, all breeds of dogs are still dogs. A Shiba Inu isn't a different species of canine from a Cocker Spaniel. They can interbreed rather easily. So, no that isn't the case of evolution happening in less than millions of years. We haven't created a new species of canine yet with genetic breeding.

But overall yes, controlled evolution can speed the process up drastically, but when I'm talking about evolutionary processes I'm talking about natural evolution. Not forced adaptive changes by humans. Natural evolution happens over millions of years.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Ruiner1978

OK, it's my understanding that certain laws in physics no longer apply or don't explain what's happening on the quantum level. Untrue?

Since science isn't based on belief, but knowledge, in order for you to explain what you're trying to say, you're going to have to use knowledge to do it

Did somebody just tell you certain laws in physics no longer apply? Then did you believe them?

Curious response.

Well I'm not going to pretend that I tried and tested myself, like others would.
So yes, I was "told". I was told and I understood it.

So, now that's out the way...
Does science dictate that certain laws in physics no longer apply or don't explain what's happening on the quantum level or not?
Perhaps you are unsure?

So, you didn't watch the video. Ok...

originally posted by: Bedlam
It would have to be one amazing proof.

Would you be ok if science proved there was no God?

If you are asking the other member as a legitimate question, I will wait for them to answer. (But I would admit it would be a surprise for me to see a member such as yourself who seems so knowledgeable about science and the negative effects of religion to ask such a seemingly obvious question as though you were truly curious about their answer).

If you are asking the question rhetorically as in making the point that the other member wouldn't accept a scientific explanation that disproves God's existence even if it were done in front of their face, then I would agree with you. As we both know, however, attempting to disprove the existence of a negative statement in such a fashion is not possible in ANY form of belief system or framework of knowledge. (Unless the member tried to make you disprove a negative before, I don't see a reason why you would attempt to do so now.)

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Bedlam
It would have to be one amazing proof.

Would you be ok if science proved there was no God?

If you are asking the other member as a legitimate question, I will wait for them to answer. (But I would admit it would be a surprise for me to see a member such as yourself who seems so knowledgeable about science and the negative effects of religion to ask such a seemingly obvious question as though you were truly curious about their answer).

If you are asking the question rhetorically as in making the point that the other member wouldn't accept a scientific explanation that disproves God's existence even if it were done in front of their face, then I would agree with you. As we both know, however, attempting to disprove the existence of a negative statement in such a fashion is not possible in ANY form of belief system or framework of knowledge. (Unless the member tried to make you disprove a negative before, I don't see a reason why you would attempt to do so now.)

It's simple really.
He asked me because he's under the assumption that I'm a creationist and a member of the church due to his misconception of what I'm actually criticising.

Are you under that assumption too?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Then you agree with me that science doesn't have all the answers?

No scientifically literate person believes for an instant that science has all the answers.

However, all answers that contradict scientific evidence, even upon careful investigation, are wrong. And all answers that cannot be proven may safely be ignored.

That's awfully defeatist...

Well then, prove me wrong.

it's my understanding that certain laws in physics no longer apply or don't explain what's happening on the quantum level. Untrue?

Which laws would those be?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Are you under that assumption too?

You didn't ask me, but -- I didn't, until you brought God into the discussion. Now I wonder.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Are you under that assumption too?

You didn't ask me, but -- I didn't, until you brought God into the discussion. Now I wonder.

I have noticed that usually those that attack science always bring god into it. This confuses me on how they believe disproving science somehow proves there is a god. People attack and ignore the evidence for the big bang because they believe it somehow proves creationism . But logic says just because we learned how something happened doesnt mean there wasnt a guiding force. Ne personally i believe its the universe itself and it will always push for higher sophistication. As time goes on things will become more complicated just like the big bang used to be just a hot soup of material. As time went on it formed more intricate things like planets and stars.

Once we get a single celled organism its only a matter of time before they organize and create more complicated life forms.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
It's simple really.
He asked me because he's under the assumption that I'm a creationist and a member of the church due to his misconception of what I'm actually criticising.

Are you under that assumption too?

At the time I made my earlier post, I had read nothing before the comment of that member I was asking the question to. Which was lazy on my part.

I don't actually know anything about your position because this is the first post of yours I have seen. I didn't even know of you as a member because I don't recognise your username. The other member I was asking, is a member I do recognise and have had conversations with in the past, that's why I asked him such specific questions.

Keeping all that in mind, can you please state what your position is (concisely) so I don't have to go back 2-3 pages to find out. I also might end up misinterpreting your previous post after what you just told me you think the other member thinks about you.

I admit I was lazy, and should be made to atone but I have personally had a very emotionally draining day and, as a favour, ask you to briefly express your views in relation to the topic. If you don't want to, that is fine. If you don't, I will probably leave this thread because I do not have any reason to be here.

If you are willing to allow me to participate then please do as I requested before. It's up to you.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
It's simple really.
He asked me because he's under the assumption that I'm a creationist and a member of the church due to his misconception of what I'm actually criticising.

Are you under that assumption too?

At the time I made my earlier post, I had read nothing before the comment of that member I was asking the question to. Which was lazy on my part.

I don't actually know anything about your position because this is the first post of yours I have seen. I didn't even know of you as a member because I don't recognise your username. The other member I was asking, is a member I do recognise and have had conversations with in the past, that's why I asked him such specific questions.

Keeping all that in mind, can you please state what your position is (concisely) so I don't have to go back 2-3 pages to find out. I also might end up misinterpreting your previous post after what you just told me you think the other member thinks about you.

I admit I was lazy, and should be made to atone but I have personally had a very emotionally draining day and, as a favour, ask you to briefly express your views in relation to the topic. If you don't want to, that is fine. If you don't, I will probably leave this thread because I do not have any reason to be here.

If you are willing to allow me to participate then please do as I requested before. It's up to you.

Pleased to meet you.

I'm happy to tell you about my position.
I'm fairly scientifically minded, the science I'm most interested in is Psychology. But I have a greater passion for metaphysics and philosophy. I'm not religious but I feel I have an understanding why others are, which differs greatly from the general consensus of the "educated" on this site.

I made a comment about science being the new religion. How people act in similar ways to the religious when what they think, know, believe comes under question. I also made a comment about today's theories being yesterday's myths in the sense that both where/are fundamentally the best way available of the times to try to understand where we came from.

People didn't like what I said and pretty much started to act like what I first stated, so I thought I would test it further.

Interesting results and much to think about.