Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

.when all along they believe in just as big a miracle, that something can be created from nothing, or that we can have an effect without a cause?

Who supposedly believes in above things?

 

[footprints]

Who supposedly believes in above things?

LOL any person who believes in any alleged scientific theory pertaining to how the universe is created, albeit some don't even know there belief is built on a power of suggestion and are ignorant of this knowledge.

 

[footprints]

But the religious believe exactly this, plus they neither have nor seek an explanation. They seem to think naming an agent explains everything.

LOL not everybody has to seek an explanation. But in this respect the religious and those who lean to science are exactly the same.

They named the agent well before science knew about it. God per se is as good a name as any at this point in time.

Huh?

LOL you would have to look at it from a reasoned and logical position then apply critical thinking to it, in order to understand it. In essence it says, both the religious and its supporters, and science and its supporters use the same principal of thinking and intelligence. To condemn one is to condemn the other, to herald one is to herald the other even if people through their own common sense don't see it or understand it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

LOL any person who believes in any alleged scientific theory pertaining to how the universe is created, albeit some don't even know there belief is built on a power of suggestion and are ignorant of this knowledge.

Well, my guess is that you have no clue about science or you wouldnt state such things.
Science doesnt say we came out of "nothing".

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

LOL you would have to look at it from a reasoned and logical position then apply critical thinking to it, in order to understand it. In essence it says, both the religious and its supporters, and science and its supporters use the same principal of thinking and intelligence. To condemn one is to condemn the other, to herald one is to herald the other even if people through their own common sense don't see it or understand it.

Sorry but you are wrong. Science deals with reality, and tries to find explanations on how to explain reality, with PROOF. Religion deals with things outside reality, and only deals with absolute certainties and is arrogant about it. Science and Scientists actively try to reframe from saying a theory is certain, because Science knows nothing is certain. Time and time again Science has helped the species, Religion has brought hatred and war to the world and brought no benefits, before it is said, yes religion does have charities that help people, but there are loads of secular charities too.

Religion is dogmatic, Science however is very humble as to what we do and do not know, and is constantly refining and changing theories to better reflect reality.

So please show how Science is in anyway like Religion? they seem like opposites to me.

 

[slate28]

" ... it's a mathematical impossibility for life to have evolved from non-life, then the theory falls down. How do you explain life's origin."

Surely right now Science cannot explain the birth of our universe as anything but 'life from non-life' with the Big Bang and all that. I'm not saying it that life from non-life is not a mathematical impossibility but... you know...

 

[tumbleweed41]

LOL any person who believes in any alleged scientific theory pertaining to how the universe is created, albeit some don't even know there belief is built on a power of suggestion and are ignorant of this knowledge.

And some do not even know the meaning of Scientific Theory

 

[slate28]

came into this way to late. just going to read from now on.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

LOL you would have to look at it from a reasoned and logical position then apply critical thinking to it, in order to understand it. In essence it says, both the religious and its supporters, and science and its supporters use the same principal of thinking and intelligence.

Not at all correct. The scientific paradigm and religious paradigm are completely different. In science, you formulate theories based on observations and test via hypotheses. It's a self-correcting method that's based on verifying if something may be correct without necessarily being able to prove something. In religion, it's the opposite, you base theories (not scientific ones though) on observations and you go with it, you don't test them and they're not self-correcting. So although a religious person and a scientist can observe the same event and formulate concepts that can explain that event, the ways they go about doing so are completely different. In their attempts to formulate concepts to explain the event, scientists use reductionism whereas religious believers generally don't. Beyond having the same goal in mind, everything else is different.

Why is it MSizer that some people can make fun of people with religious beliefs, when all along they believe in just as big a miracle, that something can be created from nothing, or that we can have an effect without a cause?

Science doesn't support the notion that something just comes with a wave of the magic wand. This was debunked in the 19th century by Louis Pasteur where he tested if something can come spontaneously or if it needs a precursor. Although a cause for something may not yet be known, that doesn't mean that we support the notion of there being an effect without a cause. The two are different.

That is dangerous "God of the gaps," logic. I would say no more dangerous than the "Missing links," logic, or the "Piecing things together with more than half the evidence missing," logic.

There is evidence however from the scientists, real physical evidence not fluffy evidence that's meaningless. You're right, there are issues of missing links, however, there are two things to consider. First, the missing links status isn't static because new evidence is being found continuously. To find the evidence though is a very tedious task, nevermind trying to figure out what organism the bones may or may not belong to. Second, seeing as how there are missing links, why is it that no scientist has been able to propose an alternative theory that could disprove TOE?

All it ever says at this particular moment in time, is probability, probablity, probability.

This argument is used over and over again, and is really a null point. Science acknowledges that since we don't know every single possible thing, we cannot prove something is 100% true or false. We have to rely on probability. Also, in science you have to use statistical analysis, and so one is already dealing with probability prior to formulating any conclusions.

Either the religious are just as reasoned thinkers as the atheist, or they are both very unreasoned thinkers

Not all atheists turn to science, so if you're going to address science, then it's more accurate to substitute scientist for atheist in your claim. I'm interested though in this statement quite a bit actually for one reason that I'll address with a question: if the theists and atheists are both unreasoned thinkers, then where does that leave you, unless you too admit you're an unreasoned thinker according to that statement?

 

[Valjean]

" ... it's a mathematical impossibility for life to have evolved from non-life, then the theory falls down. How do you explain life's origin."

Surely right now Science cannot explain the birth of our universe as anything but 'life from non-life' with the Big Bang and all that. I'm not saying it that life from non-life is not a mathematical impossibility but... you know...

This absurd talking point keeps resurfacing no matter how many times it's refuted. It just goes to illustrate how impervious to actual facts the religious can be.
The mere fact that life does exist belies the creationist perspective.

The creationists say there was first no life, then, later, there was life -- then they say such a thing is mathematically impossible! This is exactly the sequence they criticize the scientists for proposing. Are they schizophrenic?
Creationism doesn't explain life's origin -- it doesn't propose a mechanism -- it just proposes an agent -- God. The mechanism, or, rather, non-mechanism, must then needs be magic. Creationists, then, hold that magic is a more reasonable explanation for life than actual mechanism.

This whole debate is absurd. It's comparing apples and bicycles. The scientist proposes a mechanism, the creationist, an agent. These are entirely different things.
A mechanism doesn't need an agent, but an agent does need a mechanism. Why is this not obvious? Why do we keep arguing apples and bicycles and think there's the remotest possibility of mutual understanding?

 

[footprints]

Well, my guess is that you have no clue about science or you wouldnt state such things.
Science doesnt say we came out of "nothing".

LOL science does say it, well the good physicists et al do, they will freely tell you their theories are built on a power of suggestion.

It is generally only lay people who do not understand we do not have all knowledge yet.

 

[footprints]

Sorry but you are wrong. Science deals with reality, and tries to find explanations on how to explain reality, with PROOF. Religion deals with things outside reality, and only deals with absolute certainties and is arrogant about it. Science and Scientists actively try to reframe from saying a theory is certain, because Science knows nothing is certain. Time and time again Science has helped the species, Religion has brought hatred and war to the world and brought no benefits, before it is said, yes religion does have charities that help people, but there are loads of secular charities too.

Religion is dogmatic, Science however is very humble as to what we do and do not know, and is constantly refining and changing theories to better reflect reality.

So please show how Science is in anyway like Religion? they seem like opposites to me.

Sorry but I am right. Science does deal with reality, that is why good scientist will tell you their premise as it pertains to the origin of the universe is built on a power of suggestion. This power of suggestion is either something was created from nothing, or we have an effect without a cause. We don't have the answer to this, no matter how much you or anybody else tries to tell me we do or that I am wrong, it will not change the facts as they stand at this point in time.

Do you really want me to show you how science is like religions, try this one, time and time again science has helped the species, religion has brought hatred and war to the world and no benefits. Talk about bigoted hypocrisy and perceptional bias. Tell me again about the help thalidomide gave to the speices, and of course that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Science isn't humble, it has people like atheists talking for it.

 

[footprints]

And some do not even know the meaning of Scientific Theory

Then I suggest you learn, it would make conversation more interesting.

 

[footprints]

Not at all correct. The scientific paradigm and religious paradigm are completely different. In science, you formulate theories based on observations and test via hypotheses. It's a self-correcting method that's based on verifying if something may be correct without necessarily being able to prove something. In religion, it's the opposite, you base theories (not scientific ones though) on observations and you go with it, you don't test them and they're not self-correcting. So although a religious person and a scientist can observe the same event and formulate concepts that can explain that event, the ways they go about doing so are completely different. In their attempts to formulate concepts to explain the event, scientists use reductionism whereas religious believers generally don't. Beyond having the same goal in mind, everything else is different.

Science and religion is only different to you because of your bias. Religion changes its stance often based on new observations from science, please give me a break, have you ever heard of ID.

Please stick to reality and not perceptions in your head.

Science doesn't support the notion that something just comes with a wave of the magic wand. This was debunked in the 19th century by Louis Pasteur where he tested if something can come spontaneously or if it needs a precursor. Although a cause for something may not yet be known, that doesn't mean that we support the notion of there being an effect without a cause. The two are different.

I never said science did support the notion of a magic wand. Albeit I might have said that anybody who tells me I am wrong as it pertains to the power of suggestion behind the cause of the universe at this point in time believes in magic wand stuff, and is no different to hard line theist at this point of time in our knowledge, for it is unknown. And I have also previously given my interpretation to this unknown knowledge, please read and keep up with the debate so I do not have to deal with this perceptional garbage.

There is evidence however from the scientists, real physical evidence not fluffy evidence that's meaningless. You're right, there are issues of missing links, however, there are two things to consider. First, the missing links status isn't static because new evidence is being found continuously. To find the evidence though is a very tedious task, nevermind trying to figure out what organism the bones may or may not belong to. Second, seeing as how there are missing links, why is it that no scientist has been able to propose an alternative theory that could disprove TOE?

There are missing links Malleus, and nothing you or anybody can do or say at this point in time will change this. Telling me I am wrong about this, only shows their own ignorance. Albeit many will cling to Blind Faith of Beliefs where scientific theory is concerned.

Religious people also tell me that finding evidence is a tedious task.

Most scientists are trying to prove The Theory of Evolution, so it sets their prejudice to this bias. Of the scientists who do come up with theories against it, what can I say, majority rules. Albeit again from science just like probability, we also know the majority isn't always right.

This argument is used over and over again, and is really a null point. Science acknowledges that since we don't know every single possible thing, we cannot prove something is 100% true or false. We have to rely on probability. Also, in science you have to use statistical analysis, and so one is already dealing with probability prior to formulating any conclusions.

You do not have to explain statistical analysis and probability to me, albeit there are a few (scientific) posters who could use your help in understanding this process.

A probability of 1:1,000,000 can be right over a probability of 999,999:1,000,000.

Not all atheists turn to science, so if you're going to address science, then it's more accurate to substitute scientist for atheist in your claim. I'm interested though in this statement quite a bit actually for one reason that I'll address with a question: if the theists and atheists are both unreasoned thinkers, then where does that leave you, unless you too admit you're an unreasoned thinker according to that statement?

Science deals with natural causes of the universe, this encompasses everything. Even though I have met quite a few atheists who have some very warped association patterns, this is still encompassed in the realm of science.

I already know, I am an unreasoned thinker. This gives me a head start on everybody else if you choose only to accept the unreasoned thinker part of the quoted passage and competely ignore the reasoned part. Which isn't very logical, reasonable or rational, now is it?

 

[footprints]

This absurd talking point keeps resurfacing no matter how many times it's refuted. It just goes to illustrate how impervious to actual facts the religious can be.

I am reading this and wondering who is more impervious to actual facts?

The mere fact that life does exist belies the creationist perspective.

Now that is a warped perspective.

The creationists say there was first no life, then, later, there was life -- then they say such a thing is mathematically impossible! This is exactly the sequence they criticize the scientists for proposing. Are they schizophrenic?

Many religious believe in miracles (the mathematical impossible and the unknowable) what is the excuse of science? Scientific idiots believe in the same thing and call the religious names and ask dumb questions like are they schizophrenic when they do the same thing, so what would this make scientists, or more so, those that speak for the name of science?

Creationism doesn't explain life's origin -- it doesn't propose a mechanism -- it just proposes an agent -- God. The mechanism, or, rather, non-mechanism, must then needs be magic. Creationists, then, hold that magic is a more reasonable explanation for life than actual mechanism.

Creationism does propose a mechanism (refer to science, they tell all the theories of how a deity may have possibly achieved the things alleged), they have the same missing links as science does with its theories.

This whole debate is absurd. It's comparing apples and bicycles. The scientist proposes a mechanism, the creationist, an agent. These are entirely different things.

Then stop trying to compare apples to bicycles, start comparing apples to apples and bicycles to bicycles.

A mechanism doesn't need an agent, but an agent does need a mechanism. Why is this not obvious? Why do we keep arguing apples and bicycles and think there's the remotest possibility of mutual understanding?

You just have to get those apples and bicycles out of your head it is really clouding the issue.

 

[ark_of_salvation]

Nothing can only create nothing, before the universe began something must have always existed.
"Its ENERGY.ENERGY is eternal, the first law of thermodynamics confirms that it cant be created nor destroyed. No beginning or uncreated that is the defenition eternal. Youc ant claim that this energy always existed in the known universe, because science has proven that the unicverse didnt always exist. "The universe and time didnt always exist" by Stephen Hawking.This energy source that was present before the univers had to have power beyond anything we can begin to imagine, considering it had to transfer enrgy into trillions of stars and billions of galaxies. A seperate eternal enegy source that exists outside the universe had to hve transferred its energy on the universe(because we know the univers didnt always exist).
Its not unreasonable to think this enormous energy source was god.We have two options to determine what this powerful and eternel existing energy is.It could be a dumb unconcious or vagure energy source. However this is completely illogical as we can observe complexity, order and design in the universe. The most logical answer would be that an intelligent mind constructed the universe(god almighty)....simple^_^

 

[camanintx]

Its not unreasonable to think this enormous energy source was god.We have two options to determine what this powerful and eternel existing energy is.It could be a dumb unconcious or vagure energy source. However this is completely illogical as we can observe complexity, order and design in the universe. The most logical answer would be that an intelligent mind constructed the universe(god almighty)....simple^_^

Actually, all of the complexity and order you see in the universe can be explained by simple natural processes like gravity. Modern cosmological theory indicates that the universe started from an extremely uniform, disorganized state. Now, how is intelligence the most logical assumption about the cause of such a state?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

LOL science does say it, well the good physicists et al do, they will freely tell you their theories are built on a power of suggestion.

Since you are soooooo knowledgable about science you surely can give me a link to the scientific theory or law that claims that we came out of nothing.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Since you are soooooo knowledgable about science you surely can give me a link to the scientific theory or law that claims that we came out of nothing.

I would be interested in hearing about this supposed Theory of Nothing too.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Then I suggest you learn, it would make conversation more interesting.

Teach me oh Wise One.
Explain to me what a Scientific Theory is. I would love for you to explain yourself.