How can you honestly believe in Science?

It is amazing how people twist mountains into molehills and vice versa.

I am on a computer, so I don't have to believe in science, it is real.

Really? The theory of everything is proven because of a keyboard and some circuits?

Amazing, do tell!



Is it faith, or is it proof, answer these sciences for me:

the mechanics of a black hole

how the universe started

what other planets are made of

the universe is exanding

the age of the earth, planets, sun, galaxy, etc.



There is NO WAY you can prove those things. You must not only have faith in the scientists, but faith in more scientists that built the devices that measure things.

If we weren't there to document it ... how can you prove the age of a rock is 2 billion years old of 3 million years old. How do you know it isn't a trillion years old. It is funny, it is based on ASSUMPTIONS that carbon and other elements have been constant. They have FAITH in those assumptions, so, they tell it to you AS IF it were fact. It is easier than explaining themselves.

Their ideas of the universe expanding is based on faint light from far away, and so is the distance. They make calculations base on our star, and others, assume this is how it must be throughout the universe. They also use red shift and blue shift. Even though these objects are 'millions of light years' away ... think about that distance before I continue ... traveling at the speed of light for millions or billions of years, not your trip to the gas station ... it apparently gives them enough information to ascertain its age, size, and distance. Forget the fact that we KNOW gravity can affect light and so can magnetism. We KNOW that light is a form of wave, and waves can intersect and influence each other. Sounds like a lot of assumption, and faith in HUMANS to me.

I don't have to get into the other things, I think you see what I am getting on about. We haven't been past the moon. There is no verification for these ideas and theories. The moon was not comprised of what they thought, and they still don't know why it has a lower mass ratio (about 60%). It takes a lot of faith to believe MOST science.

Notice I didn't say all science. We know that gravity accelerates things on earth at 9.86 m/s^2 ... we don't understand gravity. We know electricity and magnetism exist, we don't understand its true nature, nor can we harness it. We can't even come close to one bolt of lightning. We may be able to manipulate it, that doesn't mean absolute knowledge.

We are constantly learning more, and seeing bigger pictures. But to think that you don't have to have faith to believe in science, you are only kidding yourself.

btw, Newton, a renowned physicist ... you know, the one with the apple He was a devout Christian. Some times it takes a little faith in science and G-d to figure out things. But you don't have to believe that, it is up to you to decide your faith and belief system.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
It is amazing how people twist mountains into molehills and vice versa.

I am on a computer, so I don't have to believe in science, it is real.

Really? The theory of everything is proven because of a keyboard and some circuits?

Amazing, do tell!

it proves that science works, i'm not talking about proving individual theories here.
the theory of everything is something that needs to be proven through science, a computer is an example of how that science works/

Is it faith, or is it proof, answer these sciences for me:

the mechanics of a black hole

how the universe started

what other planets are made of

the universe is exanding

the age of the earth, planets, sun, galaxy, etc.

i'm not qualified. but the thing is that science in the realm of the theoretical is admittedly not 100% known. we simply state that it is the best answer we have with the available evidence, it isn't a matter of faith when you're talking about something that is essentially an admittedly incomplete guess.

There is NO WAY you can prove those things. You must not only have faith in the scientists, but faith in more scientists that built the devices that measure things.

no, there is a way to prove these things. it's not a matter of faith. the thing is that we currently admit to only having the best available guess. and we don't need to have faith in the scientists that built the devices, we have science to explain how the devices work, it requires no faith to believe in it.

If we weren't there to document it ... how can you prove the age of a rock is 2 billion years old of 3 million years old. How do you know it isn't a trillion years old. It is funny, it is based on ASSUMPTIONS that carbon and other elements have been constant. They have FAITH in those assumptions, so, they tell it to you AS IF it were fact. It is easier than explaining themselves.

it's not an assumption that radioactive decay is a constant, it's an observation. you clearly don't understand the concept of radioactive decay by saying things like "it is based on ASSUMPTIONS that carbon and other elements have been constant"
it isn't based on an assumption that any element has remained constant, it's based on an observation of the rate of decay of certain radioactive isotopes.

Their ideas of the universe expanding is based on faint light from far away, and so is the distance. They make calculations base on our star, and others, assume this is how it must be throughout the universe. They also use red shift and blue shift. Even though these objects are 'millions of light years' away ... think about that distance before I continue ... traveling at the speed of light for millions or billions of years, not your trip to the gas station ... it apparently gives them enough information to ascertain its age, size, and distance. Forget the fact that we KNOW gravity can affect light and so can magnetism. We KNOW that light is a form of wave, and waves can intersect and influence each other. Sounds like a lot of assumption, and faith in HUMANS to me.

light isn't a wave, it's both a wave and a particle. also, we only make the best extrapolation. the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, that is hard scientific observation. ....and magnestism cannot affect light at all. gravity can, but it takes extreme gravity to make anything but a negligble difference.
there is hard scientific observation, look into the peer-reviewed scientific works if you want answers because i'm not a qualified astrophyscist and can only tell you so much.

I don't have to get into the other things, I think you see what I am getting on about.

yes, and it is all based on a fundamental misunderstanding of various scientific concepts and the scientific method.

We haven't been past the moon.

yes we have. we have sent various probes past the moon.

There is no verification for these ideas and theories.

yes there are, just read actual scientific papers, they're full of measurements

The moon was not comprised of what they thought, and they still don't know why it has a lower mass ratio (about 60%). It takes a lot of faith to believe MOST science.

the initial ideas of what the moon was comprised of were all guess work based on naked eye observation. now we can actually use instruments to determine what the composition of objects is. and guess what, science ADMITS it doesn't know the reasons behind the mass ration... YET. it doesn't take a lot of faith for you to understand a whole lot of the physics behind your everyday life, does it

Notice I didn't say all science. We know that gravity accelerates things on earth at 9.86 m/s^2 ... we don't understand gravity. We know electricity and magnetism exist, we don't understand its true nature, nor can we harness it. We can't even come close to one bolt of lightning. We may be able to manipulate it, that doesn't mean absolute knowledge.

science has never claimed absolute knowledge, seems like i was right in assuming you knew little of it.

We are constantly learning more, and seeing bigger pictures. But to think that you don't have to have faith to believe in science, you are only kidding yourself.

you don't have faith to believe in science, you only have a reasonable acceptance of the most logical theories based on the availble evidence. faith is something that is based on a lack of evidence and a guess, a theory is based on what evidence we do have.

btw, Newton, a renowned physicist ... you know, the one with the apple

He was a devout Christian. Some times it takes a little faith in science and G-d to figure out things. But you don't have to believe that, it is up to you to decide your faith and belief system.

he also didn't believe in satan or the trinity and thought alchemy was the solution to all of the worlds problems...
that's what you get for using the logical fallacy of the argument from authority.

i personally choose to have no faith or belief system.

Funny thing about science is that once it is very well proven and understood, anybody can use it regardless of their belief/faith. You can still make use of it even if it is not fully understood by the layman or even the experts in that field. Does not claim to be, to know the answer to everything.

Funny thing about religion is that you generally have to be in one for it to work. If you are not in it, it may not work, or will not work as well as it should, unless you are into it. Each one claims exclusively to be and to have the answer for everthing.

Science: tool.

Religion: cult/tool/system.

Both tools can be used for benevolent or malevolent goals, but one requires/demands your obedience.

Simple.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by ixiy]

well done to pick line by line.

instead of wasting my time ... I will say this. How do you know carbon has been constant throughout time. I am not talking about radioactive decay. How do you know. Maybe, just maybe, it has not been constant, then what ... that billion year old rock's age is based on a timeline that is FALSE.

Mountains out of molehills, molehills out of mountains.

I don't care if you think science is fact. I think you believe in it.

Ok, let's do it like the religious people define evolution.

I believe in science, not Science. I believe in evolution, not Evolution. Does that make sense for you?

I really don't care what anyone says, if we don't have continuous records of our past, you cannot verify anything you extrapolate from material and study is correct. It will always be based on assumptions no matter how sound it may seem.

If I throw out religion, then I would believe man has been in a similar state of intelligence for hundreds of thousands of years ... maybe millions. Why? Becuase of things they find in rock and stone ... stuff you may not believe in, because current science refutes it, and hides the evidence to keep things pretty. To explain these anomalies, either you need people to exist for millions of years, or, have a drastically different understanding on how rocks, coal, and molecular structure. That of course, is up to what each person believes. Look through some threads and you will see what I am speaking of.

But it really doesn't matter, you have a strong foundation on your beliefs on what is fact, and I can respect that. I don't need to pull every word of someone else apart when they are trying to show abstract examples to prove a thought. It would seem quite silly. It would be like someone saying a lightbulb is bright, then the person argue, no, it is actually quite dull because the sun is infinitely brighter. Sometimes people need to look at the bigger picture, tunnel vision limits the imagination ... so does being tedious to things in an abstract discussion.

Take care.

'The reason I challenge the premise of that thread is simple: everything is based on faith. Belief in God is based on faith. Belief in science is based on faith. Belief in Elvis living on the dark side of the moon is based on faith. I really don't know what sort of direction I expect this discussion to take. It is merely a challenge to those that view a belief in God as absurd. I would assert that a belief in science is just as absurd, if and only if one thinks faith is absurd. '

This is a rediculous premise to begin with. Science is verifiable: every time you turn on a lightbulb in your house - you verify science. Simple.
God is unverifiable: no-one has managed in 2000 years to prove the existence of the christian 'god', and no-one ever will.

There - that was pretty easy wasn't it?

J.

'I am on a computer, so I don't have to believe in science, it is real.

Really? The theory of everything is proven because of a keyboard and some circuits?

Amazing, do tell!'

You are twisting the premise here. Your very own statement above proves science is real:

'I am on a computer, so I don't have to believe in science, it is real.'

Correct. The very fact that you are typing on a computer, posting messages here via broadband PROVES science is real! Show me one (1) single shred of evidence that god is real. You can't - and you know you can't - because God is a 'belief' - but science is real. Simple.

J.

J.

First off, the thread title is ridiculous.

Just because someone questioned your religious belief, you have made a sarcastic thread basically saying that something which makes everything we all see and do understandable is total rubbish. Yeah good one mate!

Perhaps you could muse on the possibility that Science in fact created God. Why? because all those little neurons and whatever in your head that allow you to think of God have created your "knowledge" of God as something that exists.

Originally posted by fanthorpe


Perhaps you could muse on the possibility that Science in fact created God. Why? because all those little neurons and whatever in your head that allow you to think of God have created your "knowledge" of God as something that exists.

Its probably the other way round, God created Science, Science is merly a way of understanding the creations around us, if some form of god created everything, then science is basically figuring out the understanding, the formula and calculations of it all.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Its probably the other way round, God created Science, Science is merly a way of understanding the creations around us, if some form of god created everything, then science is basically figuring out the understanding, the formula and calculations of it all.

incorrect, man created science AND god. science is a method, a tool. it is something that we used to deduce truth.

god is something we created because we were too ignorant to explain certain things about the universe.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


god is something we created because we were too ignorant to explain certain things about the universe.

Thanks man that's what I was getting at but not in the greatest possible way!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
god is something we created because we were too ignorant to explain certain things about the universe.

It's ironic. Saying such is ignorance as well, as you can't prove nor disprove the concept of God.

Though you can do so with parts of specific faiths.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
god is something we created because we were too ignorant to explain certain things about the universe.

It's ironic. Saying such is ignorance as well, as you can't prove nor disprove the concept of God.

no it isn't. it would be ignorance if the possibility of god existing was equally as likely as the possibility of god not existing. since the possibility of god existing is easily smaller than the possibility of god not existing, my statement is quite valid.

Though you can do so with parts of specific faiths.

quite easily, in fact.

Originally posted by Quazga

Science does take faith however. Sure experiments can show repeated results, but that doesn't mean that the theory for those results is accurate. Even Einsteins said that when we look at the universe we can only assume what is making things work they way we do. No matter how well our predictions turn out, we are still using guesswork to better understand the universe.

For instance, even today the debate rages as to whether gravity is merely a force or if it actually travels like a wave. No one is going to say that on this earth Gravity doesn't exist, but science isn't required to to have knowledge of gravity, only experience.

You seem to be only mentioning some of the biggest mysteries of science thus far such as electricity and gravity.
So what if we haven't figured it out yet. It's progressing, evolving, and takes time. I believe someday we'll get there too.

At least thanks to science we don't think we're the center of the universe anymore.

You should look at what it has done for us, not what it hasn't done.

You see for us it's not good enough to say 'because god made gravity'.
We need to know how it works.
And given enough time, perhaps a million years from now, when all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place, we'll have solved the 'god' problem too.

And i'll tell you one thing I know for sure.
It will be nothing like your god. Not even close.

Originally posted by Luap
The point I'm making is that science is a faith-based system of belief, just as is religion. In religion, we have faith that a higher being (deities, God, etc.) exists. In science, we have faith that our perceptions of the world are reliable.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Luap]

god and the belief in god is a faith-based system. theres no evidence assuring you that god exist, unlike science which does offer evidence and therefore isnt a faith based system. faith is basicaly having blind trust and hope that in the end what you believed in was true.
put more thought into the arguement.

I have something to ponder...


[edit on 31-8-2007 by depth om]

Originally posted by Quazga
Read your history man, the Church didn't cause the Dark ages, it helped to hold them back as much as possible.

Yeh i'm sure... like how the church helped the poor and lower part of society in London... and how they didn't reject those who were in slavery and usually died at around 14 swipping chimmy endlessly.

Btw if you didn't know, i was being sarcastic

Originally posted by Quazga
Read your history man, the Church didn't cause the Dark ages, it helped to hold them back as much as possible.

yeah... because banning and burning works of progress from the ancient greeks really helped hold back the dark ages... preventing the works of galileo helped hold back the dark ages... creating a system in which wealth is superconcentrated in the priestly class really helped...

did you know that the great "saint" tom aquinas was given over 3 lbs of chicken to eat each day? this, while people living within walking distance of him starved and scrounged for food....
no wonder he ended up getting a reputation for his weight.

Of course you shouldn't believe in science. You shouldn't believe that there's something called gravity and go jump off and bridge and let god save you...
Can't believe someone would actually say how can you honestly believe in science, when they're using one the best invented technology.

Here's the difference between believing science and religion:
You take away religion, nothing happens, actually better
You take away science, your back in the stone ages and your screwed.

If you don't believe in science then take it away from your life!