• 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, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

Status
Not open for further replies.
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
then Man has no hope of a next life.....
and this life is a complete mystery with no purpose or resolve.

as chemistry.....we are dust.....even as we breath
Click to expand...
That's a horrible thing to say. An afterlife is not necessary for this life to have meaning. For example, parents who strive to provide a better life for their children even after their death still have purpose even if death is final.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
and your 's' theory is just a guess.
Click to expand...
Here's a quote from Scientific American that attempts to quell the confusion you are experiencing (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/):

"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."

"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Scuba Pete said:
I'm not trying to sway anyone: not even you. I have no quarrel with you believing differently than I do. I value diversity and would find this a boring place if we all felt the same. I also realize that most people who post in absolutes as you do, have a tightly closed mind. You've made up your mind and are not going to be swayed by facts or reason, no matter how salient or clever. Consequently, I write for the subsequent readers and not for you.
Click to expand...

Consider, when you say "post in absolutes", that I rarely posted much more than questions, or postulated on possibilities. That I wouldn't want to go to heaven, that it sounds inane and uninspired to me, that I do not fear death, that I don't need to tell God how to be God, and that your particular brand of "facts [and] reason" (your words from above - which I presume were what you felt you were relating to me) aren't going to sway me are the only "absolutes" I could find in our post history - and those are all about me. Who knows me better than I do? Perhaps you have a problem with my stating "absolutes" about myself?

I also bolded a word I feel hits close to home as one of the main reasons my stance is what it is. I certainly believe that being "clever" is one of the only things you can have going for you when attempting to argue the existence of supernatural beings. To me, seeing one argue for the existence of unknowable things is like the argumentative equivalent of holding up a motivational poster. Clever to a point, and not much more.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
prometheus11 said:
One scientist is not "science."

Hawking and all other scientists will admit to using such terminology so that the public can understand. However, we simply don't know how long the singularity existed before expanded. Really, that question doesn't make sense, since time wasn't a thing until the singularity. Science states that our universe expanded from a hot, dense point. Other than that we simply don't know.

You can laugh at science for not making a claim because there's no data to do so. Or you can admit that it's the most honest and correct possible answer. Honesty says "I don't know "when you don't know. Those who are dishonest start discussing miracles.
Click to expand...
Pushing the time back doesn't alter the fact...the singularity had a beginning when time began....so time arose out of not time.....and space arose out of no space.. No time and space = nothing..

Science does not know how the universe arose from nothing, does not know why it arose, and does not when it arose...and science can not prove that nothing is actually possible....so the big bang theory is based on a miracle *....something from nothing.. :)

I know for a logical fact that it is an eternal impossibility for something to come from nothing...if you think otherwise, prove me wrong?
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Pushing the time back doesn't alter the fact...the singularity had a beginning when time began....so time arose out of not time.....and space arose out of no space.. No time and space = nothing.
Click to expand...
No space and no time doesn't necessarily mean nothing. Because we have virtually no idea of the makeup of the singularity---although it is considered to have been a "state" of very high density and high temperature---all we can say is that it was. And in as much as this "state" did exist, it comprised a something.

Science does not know how the universe arose from nothing, does not know why it arose, and does not when it arose...and science can not prove that nothing is actually possible....so the big bang theory is based on a miracle *....something from nothing.. :)
Click to expand...
Aside from your mistaken contentions about nothing, we do have a fair idea of when it arose (the BB occurred). Right now it's age is pegged at 13.799±0.021 billion years.
(source: Planck Collaboration (2015). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters (Table 4 on page 31 of pdf) )
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
No space and no time doesn't necessarily mean nothing. Because we have virtually no idea of the makeup of the singularity---although it is considered to have been a "state" of very high density and high temperature---all we can say is that it was. And in as much as this "state" did exist, it comprised a something.

Aside from your mistaken contentions about nothing, we do have a fair idea of when it arose (the BB occurred). Right now it's age is pegged at 13.799±0.021 billion years.
(source: Planck Collaboration (2015). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters (Table 4 on page 31 of pdf) )
Click to expand...
We are not even talking about the singularity after the beginning...we are discussing how the singularity came into existence..ie. why and from what... Please be relevant?

Prove that I am mistaken about nothing....at a minimum explain why time came into existence?

The time that time has been in existence is irrelevant to this discussion, it is purely about why time and space came into existence from nothing...
 
Last edited:
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
That's a horrible thing to say. An afterlife is not necessary for this life to have meaning. For example, parents who strive to provide a better life for their children even after their death still have purpose even if death is final.
Click to expand...
no really.....no afterlife?......and all of this humanity is then what?
just another genus bound for extinction....

there is no glory in being human.
we are born into blood and death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top