Science is Dead
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2012, 03:37 AM
 
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 01:05 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  To me it sounds allot like the god of the gaps argument. As science fills in more gaps the boundaries where god operates are pushed further back.


That makes no sense at all. I suppose if you're referring to the idea of a Christian-type God, then sure, but otherwise there is nothing about science or the advancement of science that leads us anywhere close to a notion that the universe is chaotic and produced out of nothing by mere chance. The more we discover, the more order there seems to be--intentional order.

(25-06-2012 03:14 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  As it is, I searched my ass off and compiled some great abiogensis information. While there are some gaps left, it's look pretty dismal for God to fill in that space any more.


Again, you're arguing against the mythological god of the Holy Bible and Koran. That's like arguing with a retard. If that's the best you can do, then you need to move to the sidelines and watch for a while.
Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 03:47 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(24-06-2012 11:53 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(24-06-2012 04:04 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Evil_monster master...will be pleased... Evil_monster




I am Satan's master. We always have been.
I was actually doing Renfield in my mind, so that'd be Dracula, not Satan. Big Grin

So if I'm reading this right, basically the story is you enjoy coming here trolling atheists, yeah?

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-06-2012, 03:49 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2012 03:52 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 03:37 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 01:05 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  To me it sounds allot like the god of the gaps argument. As science fills in more gaps the boundaries where god operates are pushed further back.


That makes no sense at all. I suppose if you're referring to the idea of a Christian-type God, then sure, but otherwise there is nothing about science or the advancement of science that leads us anywhere close to a notion that the universe is chaotic and produced out of nothing by mere chance. The more we discover, the more order there seems to be--intentional order.

(25-06-2012 03:14 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  As it is, I searched my ass off and compiled some great abiogensis information. While there are some gaps left, it's look pretty dismal for God to fill in that space any more.


Again, you're arguing against the mythological god of the Holy Bible and Koran. That's like arguing with a retard. If that's the best you can do, then you need to move to the sidelines and watch for a while.
I understand what you are saying. I know why you are correct. It's like getting into a fist fight with the ocean.

To believers that stuff is real. Really real, even if it's just the product of their minds.
To them we reject god cause we are afraid of giving up our sin. (which is so retarded I can't even begin to explain)

But I have some hope that they can and will, at the least, question their faith.

After that you have my respect.

But to follow blindly, with out reason, is ludicrous .

[EDIT] You should read D'Holbachs System of Nature

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 04:50 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 03:37 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 01:05 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  To me it sounds allot like the god of the gaps argument. As science fills in more gaps the boundaries where god operates are pushed further back.
That makes no sense at all. I suppose if you're referring to the idea of a Christian-type God, then sure, but otherwise there is nothing about science or the advancement of science that leads us anywhere close to a notion that the universe is chaotic and produced out of nothing by mere chance. The more we discover, the more order there seems to be--intentional order.
Well, what about snow flakes? They are produced in chaos but give the appearance of order.
[Image: snowflake.jpg] [Image: snowflakes1.jpg] [Image: x050207a039.jpg]

It's all about the human brain searching for patterns.
Wanting to find intelligent agency behind everything. We are wired that way for good reasons. It has survival advantages in dangerous environments.

To come to your conclusion you are presupposing too much. Your interpretation of seeing intended order everywhere you look is just a point of view. Not saying it's wrong... Just saying it's only one perspective.

I see order like the laws of physics but I don't endow the physical laws of the universe with intention and purpose.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DeepThought's post
25-06-2012, 05:14 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 12:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  
Quote:Personally I am unconvinced by your claims of precognition and the like that you use to argue that there is a spiritual dimension to the universe. I doubt the claims themselves and think them likely to be self-delusion at one level or another. I doubt the logical leap from accepting those claims to assuming a spiritual dimension (why couldn't precognition if it occurs be some interaction with the future, rather than with something interceding between ourselves and the future?). I doubt the very idea or of a spirituality, which in the end seems to mean nothing more than a feeling rather than a reality that might interact with ours in some meaningful way.
Great. You can doubt the precognitive experiences I have had, but I am unable to do that. And what do you mean "interaction with the future"? There is no "future." It doesn't exist yet. You do realize that, don't you?

The continuation of science relies on:
1. Sufficient creativity within our species to be able to imagine the possible and model reality
2. Sufficient capacity to experiment and to verify properties of competing models, and
3. Sufficient will, money, energy, entropy, etc to exercise creativity and to verify predictions

When you say that the future doesn't exist yet, I have to doubt your creativity Smile How is it that you can have precognition if the future doesn't exist in at least a sufficiently strong sense to perceive it? You have come up with easy answers that you know in your waters are true. So let's do some science here:
You believe you have precognition. Next time you have precognitive event, post the specifics on this board. When the events you described actually occur, describe what happened and why you think the event relates to the precognition. If a demonstrably improbable predicted event occurs, we can add it to our data set and one day we might have a statistically significant sample together. Either that, or just go to the James Randi foundation and claim a million dollars for your gift.

The thing is you come here and tell us all that a method of building knowledge is false because of your unverifiable personal experiences, which can't be differentiated from you talking to yourself or any other religious person - all of whom you are certain are wrong on every point. You do this despite the track record of science and without any justification. In fact, the discovery you provided as evidence is itself clear evidence that we can learn more about what is happening at a quantum level and that we can dig a little deeper than we have dug so far. Perhaps your revealed truth is indeed true, but you have done nothing to verify either to yourself or to us in any rigorous fashion that it is true. As such it falls into the same category as all of the other zany revealed truths that exist entirely without verification and at least some of whom directly contradict each other.

Again, it seems you are railing against science not because there is any problem with our ability to discover more in any of a hundred different fields... but because you're afraid that the gears of science will chew your revealed truth up and spit it out for lack of justification, evidence, and self-consistency.

Just what is it exactly that you know that noone else knows, and how can you show that your beliefs - any of your beliefs - are reality-based? Knowledge of the nature of God doesn't count here unless you can use that knowledge to do something that noone else can do. What can you do? Can you open up a new branch of physics based on the special interactions you are having with Nature? Can you disprove or require to be refined any scientific law or theory? Can you produce more food than other people and feed the world? Can you reverse ageing? Can you fly? Can you come back from the dead, or raise the dead? Can you communicate with the dead? Can you communicate with alien species? Can you identify alien species? Can you devise a new form of space flight? Can you locate exoplanets not yet known to science? Just what is your revealed truth?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 05:19 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 04:50 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  Well, what about snow flakes? They are produced in chaos but give the appearance of order.

They are produced by entropy. Tongue

Quote:(Water molecules in air form snowflakes, ice, in hexagonal patterns because the energies in that shape of crystal are lowest — a greater amount of energy will be dispersed as per the second law if those hexagonal patterns are formed rather than other possible forms.)

~from http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/content.htm

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-06-2012, 06:31 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 12:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  When you get to an understanding of God, God disappears entirely. When I die and go to my lucid spiritual plane, there will be less evidence of "God" than there is now.
How can there be less evidence than no evidence?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
25-06-2012, 07:39 AM
RE: Science is Dead
why bother arguing with the prophet? He clearly didn't read the article carefully, drew an incorrect conclusion, and argues from a position in which he doesn't have to present any evidence at all since he disclaims any loyalty to the christian or islamic god. He's playing by a different set of rules that he is making up as he goes along.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes devilsadvoc8's post
25-06-2012, 08:43 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 03:37 AM)Egor Wrote:  1. That makes no sense at all.

2. I suppose if you're referring to the idea of a Christian-type God, then sure,

3. but otherwise there is nothing about science or the advancement of science that leads us anywhere close to a notion that the universe is chaotic and produced out of nothing by mere chance. The more we discover, the more order there seems to be--intentional order.

4. Again, you're arguing against the mythological god of the Holy Bible and Koran. That's like arguing with a retard. If that's the best you can do, then you need to move to the sidelines and watch for a while.


As you can see, nothing at all has changed. Nothing.

#1. assertion with no supporting reason,

#2. distinction without a difference,

#3. a series of 3 unrelated assertions strung together, which are actually unrelated. (The universe could be chaotic, yet produced by a god.) b. Theists assert the universe WAS produced "out of nothing", thus prophet doesn't even know what he is asserting, c. "the more we discover .. bla bla" = assertion with no evidence. Actually, "the more we discover" the exact opposite is true. The Anthropic Principle is debunked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlD-CJPGt...re=related ,

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m+debunked

#4. Ad hominem insulting dismissal by one who, while actually producing not one coherent argument, seeks to clear the decks, cuz prophets need to keep the congragation's "eyes front", and sound like they can play with the big kids.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2012, 08:55 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 08:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...cuz prophets need to keep the congregation's "eyes front"...

Not all prophets. Sadcryface2

Of course, in an either/or situation; rather than trust in this prophet, it is best to distrust in all prophets. Thumbsup

Here's another debunker of that Anthropic Principle extrapolation them theists seem to enjoy:





Even if AP could be used to support god, it is far more likely to support an LC type god (machine intelligence) than an anthropic one. Sillies.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: