Science is Dead
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2012, 07:31 AM
RE: Science is Dead
Nah. Big E is a theist 'cause:

1) He goes with "personal god."
2) He gets lippy. Deists pretty much don't, from what I have seen. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
27-06-2012, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2012 09:46 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Science is Dead
I grow tired of the "something must have started everything" argument being used over and over again. It is as if the fact that a scientist (or a regular rational person) saying "I don't know" or "we don't know" is somehow the equivalent of "it must have been god." I believe someone else pointed out the fact that this is really nothing more than a "god of the gaps" argument, but this time, the idea of god has been placed at the origin of time and is less of a 'gap' and more of an assumed endpoint.

It is a fallacy to say "before the universe existed." The point in space and time where the universe began was the point where TIME began. There is no prior period. There is no before time. It isn't even possible to ask the question of what existed before the big bang because there was no "before the big bang."

So, saying that something started it is a baseless claim. We have no way of knowing if something was necessary to set things in motion or not, but the assumption that there wasn't anything works perfectly fine and Ocam's razor leads us to conclude that this is the most rational and likely scenario.

Let's say some energy started it (for shits and giggles). It is energy. Nothing more, nothing less. E = mc^2 tells us mass and energy are related, but neither energy nor mass are conscious. Energy is a form of mass moving at high velocities while mass is a form of energy moving at very low velocities (molecules vibrate).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
27-06-2012, 07:59 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 07:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I grow tired of the "something must have started everything" argument being used over and over again.

No shit, huh? Especially when everything starts from something less.

living word
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
27-06-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(20-06-2012 12:45 AM)Egor Wrote:  Science is dead. They have recently discovered that the standard model is not correct. You can see this article, but I doubt it will make any sense to you.
*snerk* Others on this forum have covered this foolishness far better than I could, but I need to make a response anyway.

Science evolves. Theories are proposed, tested, proven, tested still further, and sometimes disproven. And the cycle goes on. It's part of the process. It's a good thing. It by no means indicates any breakdown of science. It actually indicates the contrary - science is alive and well, and will more than likely always be so. If science didn't evolve and change, we'd still believe the sun revolves around the earth. Religious leaders love to try to smash scientific findings down because in many cases said findings contradict what the religions say is true. Religion is not willing to accept criticism in the name of truth, but simply states things as "true" and throws into prison people who disagree. This is among the reasons I despise religion.

"The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. ... So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." -- Lawrence Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like calmblueocean's post
27-06-2012, 08:16 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 01:40 AM)Egor Wrote:  Then why should I be an atheist?

Let me answer this one with a counter-question: Why should you be a theist if you have no proof that God does exist?

Quote:I don't have a burden of proof--you do. You say God doesn't exist, fine. I'm willing to believe that, all I ask is that you tell me what God is and then show how that God does not exist. That's isn't too much to ask, is it? I am willing to be an atheist--just show me why I should be.

Strawman. I didn't say that God doesn't exist. And you should be an atheist because the default position is to be skeptical. Otherwise you'd have to believe in elves, extraterrestrials, Big Foot, Nessie and the likes of them because their non-existence has yet to be proven. Also, you do have the burden of proof, since you're speaking in absolutes and claim that supernatural beings exist based on your personal experience.

Just how many logical fallacies do you have to create to support your assertions?

Quote:Somethingstarted the ball rolling--that something we call God. Now where's your atheist argument? Oh, I forgot, you excuse yourself from the intellectual battle by calling yourself an "agnostic atheist." Well then, I'm an agnostic theist. I am willing to disbelieve as soon as you give me a reason to.

See above. We're having an intellectual battle right now.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
27-06-2012, 10:08 AM
 
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 08:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  See above. We're having an intellectual battle right now.

Not with you. You're not capable of it. You're a child who parrots what he hears others say. Why don't you go cry to the mod again that you got a negative rep point. Go hide behind the teacher. I'm sure they'll fix it all up for you and then you can come back, while hiding behind their leg, and voice your little comments. Thumbsup
Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2012, 10:14 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2012 10:21 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 10:08 AM)Egor Wrote:  You're a child who parrots what he hears others say. Why don't you go cry to the mod again that you got a negative rep point. Go hide behind the teacher. I'm sure they'll fix it all up for you and then you can come back, while hiding behind their leg, and voice your little comments. Thumbsup
Actually Egor I was going to give you a chance to be civil and do the right thing.

Whats been happening with you lately? Have you been getting enough sex? Are you off your meds? What the hell is going on with you? You having relationship or finance issues?

Why should people put up with your bullshit especially when you behave like this. You are just openly rude and hostile for absolutely no reason.

Can you please stop it with the personal attacks already? It's just fucking childish. Your supposed to be older than me.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
27-06-2012, 10:19 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(25-06-2012 04:50 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 03:37 AM)Egor Wrote:  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.

Wouldn't the fact that no snowflake is alike be considered chaos? I mean, order is something that facilitates consistency, right?

Consistently different is the epitome of chaos, isn't it?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2012, 10:22 AM
 
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 07:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I grow tired of the "something must have started everything" argument being used over and over again. It is as if the fact that a scientist (or a regular rational person) saying "I don't know" or "we don't know" is somehow the equivalent of "it must have been god." I believe someone else pointed out the fact that this is really nothing more than a "god of the gaps" argument, but this time, the idea of god has been placed at the origin of time and is less of a 'gap' and more of an assumed endpoint.

It is a fallacy to say "before the universe existed." The point in space and time where the universe began was the point where TIME began. There is no prior period. There is no before time. It isn't even possible to ask the question of what existed before the big bang because there was no "before the big bang."

Then there really wasn't a big bang, was there? All you're doing is arguing for an eternal universe for which all evidence, scientific and philosophical, argues against.

To say that God started the universe is not a god-of-the-gaps argument. What we find is a missing puzzle piece. The only peice that fits comes out to be in the shape of what we always assume to be like God.

You can't get away from the comological argument and the teleological argument. To say there was no first cause or to say design is an illusion just comes across as denial at best and insanity at worst.
Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 10:19 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Wouldn't the fact that no snowflake is alike be considered chaos? I mean, order is something that facilitates consistency, right?

Consistently different is the epitome of chaos, isn't it?
I was referring to the geometric nature of the water crystals they might not be alike bit the patterns are driven or filtered by the laws of physics due to how they transfer heat energy depending on their shape. It's driven by a form of natural selection.

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: